Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK FARMS NORTH SECOND FILING (TRAILS @ TIMBERLINE) - PDP - PDP120004 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWComment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 3.2.5 Trash/Recycling areas shall be enclosed and designed to allow walk-in access without having to open the main enclosure service gate. Also such areas shall be constructed on a cement pad. Response: Trash/recycling areas will be enclosed, allow walk-in access without opening the main gate, and be constructed on a cement pad. Design Guidelines can be found at http://www.fcqov.com/recyclinqlpdf/enclosure-quidelines08O4.pd 3.5.1(1) Trash/Recycling enclosures shall be a minimum of 20 ft from a public right of way. Please see hftp://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/trash_enclosure_design—guidelines.pdf for design considerations for trash and recycling enclosures. Response: Trash/recycling areas will be a minimum of 20' from public ROWs. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 3.5.1(3) Mechanical and Utility equipment shall be painted to match building surface. Response: Mechanical and utility equipment will be painted to match building. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 3.2.1 Landscaping plan will need to be provided Response: A landscape plan will be provided with the PDP submittal. LUC 3.2.4 Lighting plan will need to be provided generally no up -lighting is allowed. Response: A photometric plan is include with the PDP submittal. It is understood that no up -lighting is allowed. 12 Response: Noted; a matrix of bedrooms and parking compliance is incluaw with the PDP submittal. See Sheet X. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 3.2.2 Requires access and circulation accommodations be made for the vehicle, bicyclist, and pedestrian and these are separate to the extent reasonably feasible LUC 3.2.2(C)(4)(a) Bicycle parking is required at a minimum of 5% of the vehicle parking. Response: It is understood that vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic must all be accommodated and that bicycle parking is required at a minimum of 5% of the vehicular parking. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 4.6(D)(3) Requires that 90% of the units to be with a 1/4 of a mile of a public park/gathering place Publicly or Privately owned. If the park is privately owned other conditions do apply such as: the park is a minimum of 10,000 sq ft, open to the public, facilities consist of multiple -use turf areas for various age groups to utilize, maintenance will need to be established and documented, and if such park is also a storm drainage then slopes, gradients, and structures shall not conflict with the recreational/civic purposes of the park. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 4.6(E)(1)(c) Requires a minimum building frontage of 40% of each block side or 50% of all the total block face. Response: The revised site plan is in compliance with the minimum building frontage requirements. LUC 4.6(E)(2)(c) There is no minimum setback from street right-of-way Response: It is understood that there are no minimum setbacks. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 4.6(E)(1)(d) Max building height is 3 stories LUC 4.6(E)(2) This is an allowance for an additional fourth story for portions of buildings near intersections and arterial streets Response: Noted, buildings are no more than 3 stories. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 4.6(E)(3) Design standards for multi -family dwellings is covered in the Comments provided by Current Planning. Response: It is understood that design standards for multi -family dwellings are covered in the comments by Current Planning. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416-2313, nbeals()fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: The rendering provide in the development shows at least three buildings fronting a common green space this does not match the site plan provided. Response: Understood; future renderings will accurately depict the layout as shown on the site plan. 11 be required. ' Response: The 8" main in Joseph Allen is shown to be extended to connect to the 12" main in Drake Road in the Preliminary Utility Plans. The additional connection to the 24" main in Timberline has been discussed with Roger Buffington. He will be modeling the connection to see if it's warranted. The Preliminary Utility Plans do not show this connection. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Response: It is understood that water conservation standards will apply for landscape and irrigation. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: Development fees and water rights will be due at time of building permit. In addition, there is a repay due for the developer's portion of the 24-inch water main in Timberline. Response: It is understood that development fees and water rights are due at time of building permit and that there is a repay due for the water main in Timberline. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416.2313, nbeals(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: The multi -family use is permitted as a Type 1 (administrative review) process. Response: It is understood that multi -family is permitted as a Type 1 process. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 4.6(D)(1) Requires that a development plan for 20 acres or less meet the minimum density of 7 units per acre. For 15.85 acres at least 111 units since the development plan proposes 315 units the plan meets the minimum. Response: It is understood that the LUC requires a minimum density of 7 du/ac for this site and that the current site plan meets this requirement. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: LUC 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) This section regulates the minimum requirement for parking spaces for mutli-family. Since the development plan did not provide the number of bedrooms per each of the 315 units it is unclear if the grand total of 560 parking spaces is adequate. (Note that spaces in detached garages may count toward the minimum parking requirements only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental or purchase cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate or purchase cost). LUC 3.2.2(K)(5)(d) At 500+ parking spaces at least 2% of that is required to be Handicap spaces provided and at least one of these shall be a van -accessible space. 10 by Aspen Engineering for the latest design information. Response: The ODP Drainage Memorandum for Spring Creek Farms North has been referred to for the proper prorated release rates from our site. These are shown in the provided Preliminary Drainage Report for the site. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/30/2011 The site is required to provide onsite water quality treatment for the runoff. Water quality treatment methods are described in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.udfcd.org/downloads/down_critmanual_volII1.htm) Response: Onsite water quality treatment will be provided in the detention pond at the southeast corner of the site. The water quality treatment will follow the Urban Drainage prescribed method. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter(o)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/30/2011 The Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,313.00/acre ($0.1449/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over 350 sq.-ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found on the City's web site at http://www. fcgov.com/util ities/bu si ness/bu i lders-and-developers/plant-i n vestment -development - fees or contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 for questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area or erosion control measures shown on the site construction plans. Response: Terms of the stormwater development fee and erosion control escrow are understood. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in the area include a 24-inch water main in Timberline, a 12-inch water main and 12-inch/21-inch sewer in Drake and an 8-inch water main and 10-inch sewer in Brockman. Response: Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in the area are understood. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: A utility coordination meeting is encouraged early in the project before the layout is finalized to insure that adequate space has been provided for all underground utilities. Response: Note; a utility coordination meeting was held on January 23, 2012. The following departments attended: WaterMastewater (Roger), Light/Power (Doug), Stormwater (Wes), Engineering (Mark and Matt), Bill from Century Link, and Don from Comcast. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: Extend the 8-inch water main in Joseph Allen from Charles Brockman to connect to the 12-inch main in Drake. A connection to the 24-inch main in Timberline is desirable and may Response: Noted, TST met with Ron 6 _ales on January 17, 2012 to review PFA , titeria and discuss hydrant placement and emergency access way locations. Our team (McWhinney, TST and Oz Architecture) also met with Ron Gonzales and Bob Poncelow with PFA on January 241^ to discuss emergency access routes in more detail. A minimum width of 20' for fire lanes with 25' inside and 50' outside turning radii have been provided along the main loop road through the site, and 30' wide lanes have been provided where emergency access is required adjacent to 3-story buildings on the site. Please refer to the site plan for specific roadway widths and their locations on the site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/30/2011 11/30/2011: Water supply required shall provide a hydrant within 300 feet of all buildings which can deliver 1500 gpm at 20 psi; thereafter, hydrant spacing is on 600 foot centers. Response: The required hydrant spacing and fire flow rate stated by PFA has been provided on the site. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/30/2011 11/30/2011: Address is required to be visible from the street on which you front. Numerals to be posted on contrasting background, minimum 6 inches in size. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/30/2011 11/30/2011: Any fire lane longer than 150 feet is required to have a turnaround with an inside radius of 25 feet and outside radius of 50 feet. Response: There are no dead -ends longer than 150 feet on this site. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschluetercDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/30/2011 The narrative submitted with the PDR application describes the drainage requirements correctly. To be consistent and to provide comments for the new applicant; I am repeating the comments from the June 13, 2011 conceptual review meeting which also proposed a multifamily project. Response: It is understood that the narrative submitted with the PDR describes the drainage requirements correctly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/30/2011 A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. Response: A preliminary drainage and erosion control report has been prepared and submitted with the Preliminary Utility Plans for this site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/30/2011 This site drains to the North Tributary outfall at the northwest corner of Drake and Timberline. There is capacity for 20 cfs from the entire Spring Creek Farms development; therefore, each site is required to detain onsite and release at the prorated share of the outfall capacity. Please refer to the ODP Drainage Memorandum for Spring Creek Farms North, March 2, 2011, A Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re -landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Response: To the extent possible, native plants will be utilized and the amount bluegrass lawns will be reduced. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartinea()fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/30/2011 11/30/2011: Once the site plan and a preliminary utility plan are prepared a utility coordination meeting is encouraged. Light & Power electric development charges will apply. Please coordinate power requirements and electric system locations with Light & Power Engineering (970)221-6700. Response: Noted, a utility coordination meeting was held on January 23, 2012. The following departments attended: WaterMastewater (Roger), Light/Power (Doug), Stormwater (Wes), Engineering (Mark and Matt), Bill from Century Link, and Don from Comcast. Department: Park Planning Contact: Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618, cforeman(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 12/01/2011: No comments Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzalesa()poudre-fire.org Topic: General Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.221-6635, rgonzalesa()poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 11/30/2011: This will be a fire sprinklered project. Response: It is understood that this will be a fire sprinklered project. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/01/2011 Comment Originated: 11/30/2011 Comment Originated: 11/30/2011 11/30/2011: Fire lanes are required to be shown as emergency access easements on the plat throughout the parking lots and the private drive within the project. Fire lanes are required to be 20 foot wide with 14 foot of clear air space, and visible by painting or signage. 7 3. On the plan provided you show Joseph Allen Drive as having 70 feet of row. This maybe necessary at the intersection with Drake Road to accommodate all movements and vehicle types, but the existing street has 63 feet of row and I would expect that the x-section of the street along this property would remain the same (other than the bump -ins which would be accommodated within that width). Response: The right-of-way provided along the extended stretch of Joseph Allen Drive has been changed to 63. 4. 1 don't know that any are actually proposed but any pedestrian crossing not at street intersections need to meet Traffic Operations criteria for a midblock crossing in order for it to be approved. Response: There are pedestrian crossings shown for Joseph Allen Drive on the preliminary plans. Location of these crossings is preliminary only and subject to change based upon the location of the community park to be located on the west side of Joseph Allen Drive. It is anticipated that all pedestrian crossings that do not occur at intersections will need to meet mid -block crossing design requirements. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Drake Road 1. The left turn into the site will need to be designed and constructed with this project. The ability to keep some landscaping in this area will be greatly desired. Response: A left turn into the site from EB Drake Road will be provided. Refer to the Preliminary Utility Plans submitted. 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk need to be designed and installed along this frontage and as necessary to accommodate the Joseph Allen Street intersection. Response: A westbound right turn lane on Drake Road at Joseph Allen is required; curb, gutter, and sidewalk design along the north edge of Drake Road will be provided from Timberline to Joseph Allen Drive. Refer to the Preliminary Utility Plans submitted. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Any necessary street cuts into existing streets are subject to applicable street cut fees. Please be aware that fees are tripled for cutting into roadways less than 5 years old. Response: It is understood that there are fees for street cuts into existing streets. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Response: It is understood that a DCP will need to be obtained before starting site work. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224-6143, lex cDfcgov.com R Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenbergers_..;gov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: If the internal street is a public street or a private street — A knuckle needs to be provided at the 90 turn. The driveway spacing and offset driveways need to meet LCUASS. Parking setbacks apply and it looks like there are at least a couple of parking lots that this would apply to. Response: The internal street is a "street -like private drive". We are proposing to eliminate the knuckle at the 90 degree turn at this point in time. Comment Number: 10 11/29/2011: Charles Brockman Drive Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 1. You are showing this existing street to have inset parking on the south side of the street. The street already exists without this condition. It maybe possible to reconstruct the street so that inset parking is provided. To do so may require additional inlets in order to accommodate the grade changes and drainage changes due to the relocation of the curb line into the existing street. Response: Charles Brockman Drive now shows no additional parking along the southern edge. Therefore, the existing condition along Charles Brockman Drive will remain as -is and will not require additional inlets or grading reconfigurations. 2. You are not showing the existing driveway on the north side of this street. The proposed street/ street like private drive needs to align with this existing driveway or be off -set from that driveway by 150 feet. The same spacing is needed to the driveway to the west and then from the street intersection even further west. Response: The existing driveway into the police station is now shown on our plans for reference; however, our site plan no longer shows a connection to Charles Brockman Drive, therefore, alignment with the driveway into the police station is no longer a concern. Comment Number: 11 11/29/2011: Joseph Allen Drive Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 1. The existing portion of Joseph Allen Drive that is constructed is not constructed with bump -ins. The plan you submitted shows the inclusion of bump -ins along the frontage of this property. This is something that is possible, but will need to look at how the transition from no bump -ins to bump -ins will occur. This may mean that some reconstruction of some of the existing curb and gutter is needed. Please be aware that it is a bit more work to design a street with bump -in since in most situations additional inlets and grade changes are needed to accommodate the design. Response: Noted; the design plans for Joseph Allen Drive no longer show or call for "bump -ins". 2. To design the bump -in locations on this street maybe a bit tricky as typically bump -ins are only provided at driveway, intersection locations and midblock crossings. Since we do not know where the streets to the west will be proposed this creates a bit of a quandary that will need to be discussed and looked at. Response: Noted; the design plans for Joseph Allen Drive no longer show or call for "bump -ins". 6i Transportation F ,ling for their requirements as well. Response: We sent Ward Stanford, Traffic Operations Engineer (Joe Olson's assistant), the TIS scoping packet on January 10, 2012 and had a number of phone conversations with him over the next few days. He returned the signed/accepted scoping form for the TIS on January 18, 2012. We contacted Aaron Iverson, Transportation Planning, on January 12, 201 Z He responded about the alternative modes aspect of the TIS later that day. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at: http://www.ladmer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm Response: Understood. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this project. This may include row and easements for Drake Road, Joseph Allen Drive and any internal streets and utility locations. Response: Right-of-way and easements will be dedicated by plat. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Response: It is understood that utility plans and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: It is unclear what the intention for the intemal.streets/ drives are. The plan labels the main internal connections as Private Street, but also identifies the area as row. There are probably several options for these drives — as I identify them out the use of them may also depend on whether or not the option meets other code requirements. Private Street — this is a street that is a separate tract not dedicated row, but the street is design to LCUASS standards (appearance, width, depth and construction). The tract would be public access, emergency access, drainage and utility easements. The private street is to be maintained by the development. Street like private drive — this is a private driveway that would need to meet the criteria within the code for a street like private drive. The area under the street like private drive would be a public access, emergency access, drainage and utility easement. The street like private drive is to be maintained by the development. Public Street — this is a public street, designed and built to LCUASS. Upon completion and acceptance the roadway will be maintained by the city after the warranty period. Response: Our intent is to provide and design a "street -like private drive" for the main roadway through the site. The main roadway uses the LCUASS Local Street section as a template (with some modifications — see the typical cross-section and Poudre Fire Authority requirements for a fire lane.) There will be public access, emergency access, drainage, and utility easements dedicated along this main roadway as indicated in the Preliminary Utility Plans submitted. Department: Engineering Development Review 4 JO need at least one unit accessing Joseph Allen Drive. Response: The site plan has been revised to comply. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 Orientation to a connecting walkway standard. I do not see sidewalks called out so I can not comment on how this does or does not meet this standard. Your street like private drive will need to have sidewalks. Response: Sidewalks are clearly delineated on the PDP submittal. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: There is a design opportunity by possibly shifting the lawn/club house area south and utilizing a greenway connection up to the future proposed park. Response: We are aware of the park west of Joseph Allen and the intent is to provide a pedestrian connection to this park. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221-6573, slangenberger(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit. Please contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 if you have any questions. Response: Noted; these fees will be paid at the time of building permit. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see: http://www,fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php Response: Noted; this fee is included with this PDP submittal package. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Response: Understood. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/2912011: Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting for the traffic study needed for this project. In addition, please contact Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: The minimum number of parking spaces is based on a per bedroom per unit basis. Parallel parking on the internal L-shaped street, whether a public street or a street -like private drive, may count towards meeting the minimum. Response: The parking count is calculated accordingly. Diagonal parking on the internal private drive has been counted toward meeting the minimum requirements. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Will there be any four -bedroom units? if so, the P.D.P. must demonstrate compliance with Section 3.8.16. Response: There are no four -bedroom units. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Keep in mind that a limited, mixed -use restaurant is permitted as a Type One land use in the M-M-N zone district. This would a small coffee shop or snack shop as part of the project. Response: It is understood that a limited, mixed -use restaurant is permitted as a Type One land use in the MMN zone district. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: A photometric plan will be required at time of submittal. All site lighting must be fully shielded and down directional. Response: A photometric plan is included on in this PDP submittal package. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Are there any dwelling units in the clubhouse? Response: Yes, the club house has a duplex residential unit attached. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 12/05/2011 If there is intention to use the park called out on the Overall Development Plan to meet the MMN park requirements, then that park must be completed by this project. Response: Understood. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 Block 3 does not meet the block standard minimum building frontage requirement. You will 2 .0 Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 2 Spring Creek Farms North Filing Number 2 Initial Project Development Plan Submittal Responses to Comments Dated December 5, 2011 Submitted: February 8, 2012 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 You must have at least three (3) distinctively different building designs for this project. Along East Drake Road and South Timberline Road and including the private drives, you can not have the same two building designs next to each other. The buildings should very in footprint size, shape, elevations etc. Also, to meet this standard, simply switching out different combinations of the same features is inadequate. Please see LUC 4.6(E)(b) for details. The elevations provided do not meet this requirement. Response: The elevations have been revised to meet LUC 4.6(E)(b). The architecture has a Craftsman theme, and includes (3) building types that vary in footprint size, shape and elevation. No more than two buildings with the same style will occur next to each other. Each craftsman style will include varied materials, balcony designs, and roof detailing while maintaining a common massing and theme. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 For this project, you must have three distinctive color schemes for structures in the development. LUC 4.6(E)(c). The elevations provided do not meet this requirement. Response: Three distinctive color schemes have been provided. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 According to the Spring Creek Farms North Overall Development Plan of record, the parcel in question is 17.4 gross acres, not 15.85 acres. This project will be required to comply with the mix of housing types standard set forth in 4.6(D)(2). Joseph Allen Drive can not be a separately platted project. Response: The project will have two housing types. Outlot A from the Spring Creek Farms North Plat will be subdivided for this project and right-of-way will be dedicated for Joseph Allen Drive with the plat. The remaining site acreage for this site will be 16.01 acres. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Parking spaces located in detached garages maybe credited toward meeting the minimum number of parking spaces only if such spaces are made available to dwelling unit occupants at no additional rental cost (beyond the dwelling unit rental rate). (Section 3.2.2(K)(1) (a). Response: Understood.