HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEW PROSPECT - FDP - FDP120011 - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)ensure that the ini, , oration is known at time of record searches ..,ch the plat being recorded at
Larimer County.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
10/22/2012: Keeping active until time of Development Agreement; otherwise resolved.
Uri IJI�I� Imo. LilJil..illll.: rtww h,,, ley L,,..i rviii uu �liuL� u iwlu Ui. �IIU LJIwulj I��.�Illiw iv1 IIL,..J
lots to ensure that the design standards proposed are upheld.
Number: 69 Created: 2/19/2010 Unresolved
[2/19/10] For lots 23-25, address how Sections 3.4.1(1) & (L) of the Land use Code are being
met. Of major importance will be how the three homes fit into the landscape. Design
guidelines addressing bulk, massing and colors shall be developed. For the public hearing a
draft of proposed guidelines shall be developed. Landscape improvements shall also be
depicted within the design guidelines.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
10/2212012: This letter will need to be provided before a DCP can be issued.
08/15/2012: In order to ensure compliance with Section 3.4.1(0) of the Land Use Code, please
provide a copy of the ACOE permit for the work adjacent to Spring Creek or written verification
that a permit is not required.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
10/22/2012: Comment kept active until the Development Agreement.
08/15/2012: A bond will be required for the plantings within the buffer zones on the project at
the time of CO and will be documented in the Development Agreement. I can provide you with
examples of other bonds, if that is helpful.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
10/22/2012: Comment kept active until the Development Agreement.
08/15/2012: A weed management plan will also be required with the involvement of a Certified
Pesticide Applicator, specifically in the Rangeland category.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(&fcgov.com
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/15/2012
08/15/2012: Please provide a copy of these redlines back to staff and indicate how this
comment was addressed.
Number: 78 Created: 2/19/2010 Unresolved
12/19/10) Add notes to Plat per redlines regarding conservation measures and buffer zones.
Department: Forestry 1-
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tbuchanan(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
response to the applicant's response is just for future reference only, should there be concerns
raised by future homeowners/users of Ellis Street on the function of the 30 foot street width.
08/17/2012: Can the possibility be explored of widening Ellis Street out to 36 feet in width
approaching Prospect Road? The wider width would help create an approach onto Prospect
Road that would better allow a three lane cross-section to function (with right -in, left -out, and
right -out maneuvers). The intent would be that the 36 feet would extend for a short distance past
the intersection such that vehicles at the intersection We've had the 30 feet local street cross
section widened out to 36 feet or larger at arterial intersections in development such as
Pinnacle Townhomes (with Robertson Street at 39 feet), Lemay Avenue Estates, Sidehill and
Street, it may not be as impactive to accommodate this widening.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012
11/02/2012: The response indicated that the signs have been added, though I'm unable to find
the signs called out on plan sheets, or details for their design and appearance. The signs need
to be placed on the site and construction plans.
08/17/2012: The site and construction plans need to specify signs being added to the
entrances of the Sprocket Drive and Ellis Street loop indicating that each street is privately
owned and maintained. Please provide a detail of these signs on the construction plan set,
examples of these are with the existing Council Tree Avenue in Front Range Village and the
under construction Choice Center Drive in Choice Center.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 08/17/2012
11/02/2012: The original comment was intended as a heads -up, but was intended to leave the
verification of the requirement to the engineer/contractor. We won't look to adding language in
the development agreement however, and this comment is a heads -up to the applicant on the
likely need for a permit.
08/17/2012: The engineer will need to verify whether a 404 permit is needed from the Army
Corps.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please ensure that with mylars of the site planning documents that "Final
Compliance Plans" is removed from the title block.
Comment Number: 17
Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: It was noticed by Technical Services that apparently the amount of utility easement
width along the private drive changed (was reduced) from the previous submittal to the present
submittal. If that's the case, are the utility providers aware of this reduction?
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 08/17/2012
11/02/2012: The response with the note on the plat that potentially allows basements with a
subdrain system is problematic if the intention is that a subdrain system is intended to be
designed after the project is approved. After further discussion and follow-up, it appears that
the development agreement will have specifications on certain lots not having basements with
references to the development agreement on the plat and site plan. Further evaluation will be
needed upon looking into proposed language.
08/17/2012: Are there lots that are prohibited from having basements, and if so, can these lots
be called out specifically on the plat as not being allowed to have basements? This would
FCollins
ort
/0"V
January 23, 2013
Terence Hoaglund
Vignette Studios
P.O. Box 1889
Fort Collins, CO 80522
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/deve/opmentmview
, X `A/,- z A
{`6Q/P1 2/(1GhA/E.r/ Co EFFicy6N] Ll
RE: New Prospect, FDP120011, Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies 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: Engineering Development Review �____1
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221.6567, mvirata(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/17/2012
11 /02/2012: The detail provided for the concave gutter inlet detail should also refer to standard
driveway approach detail 706 (detail 706 wasn't included in the detail sheet).
08/17/2012: More information is needed on the construction plan set for the two inlets
proposed in proposed driveways. Please have details provided on the construction plan set
showing cross sectional views for both the inlets and the driveways, how the inlet grate
matches these driveway grades, etc. It may be worth looking into having the inlets be placed
behind the gutter.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970.221.6567, mvirata(a.fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/17/2012
11/02/2012: The response from the applicant was a reluctance to accommodate this coupled
with this widening not presently part of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. This
between the two pyes is a key factor in the problem.
08/14/2012: Provide a detail on the proposed MH to be constructed over the 30" sewer near
Lots 9 & 10.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 08/14/2012
10/29/2012: The detail shows a conflict between the existing 30" sewer and the proposed 8". I
appears that the 8" sewer is coming into the side of the 30" as it nears the MH. The small angle
between the two pipes is a key factor in the problem.
08/14/2012: Provide a detail on the proposed MH to be constructed over the 30" sewer near
Lots 9 & 10,
Department: Zoning
Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbamespfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/31/2012
10/31/2012: Lot 25 appears to have a constrained building envelope size due to the sewer
easement. The developer should make sure that it's really a buildable lot.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012
10/1812012: 1 agree that the setback issue has been resolved. However, the 'building
setbacks' information on Sheet 1 of 5 states "see typicals on Sheet 2". However, the typicals
on Sheet 2 no longer show any dimensions. Please add the dimensions.
07/27/2012: Site plan sheet 2 of 5 indicates that the front building setback for lots 18 L 22 will
be 10�. The code requires a 15� miniumum front setback. The proposed 104 setback will
require a modification. The jypical Loth details on the same sheet show similar
non -complying setbacks for other lots.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/27/2012
10/1812012: The applicant's comment letter in the latest re -submittal states that the note has
been corrected. However, the wording of note 19 is the same as the wording from the
previous submittal. Therefore, it still needs to be corrected.
07/27/2012: Note #19 on site plan sheet 1 of 5 is confusing. It states that lots 1-25 can be
duplexes or detached single family, but goes on to state that there can be only one unit per lot.
I assume the term �uniQ means dwelling unit, and if so, that means there cant be any
duplexes on those lots since that would be 2 units on a lot. If by �uniQ they mean 6building6,
then that6s the term they should use instead. If 6unit6 means �building�, then Note #20
becomes confusing in that it would mean that 2 single-family dwellings could be on lot 26 and
on lot 27.
Comment Number: �5 comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please adjust the L16 label so it is not cutting through the lot lines.
Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated:
11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please add the street widths for the private drives.
Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated:
11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please add distances along the west line of lot 25 & the east line of Tract F.
Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated:
11/02/2012
11/mmi?. Please r.herk tha diOnnr?c nn tho lino hatu,oen Intl ?3 $ ?4
Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated:
11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please add a legend.
Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated:
11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add a lienholder signature block.
Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated:
11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Is Floodplain And Floodway Notes #1 correct? It appears to only be TractF.
Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated:
11102/2012
11/02/2012: Is a newer title commitment needed?
Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: The description of benchmark 15-97 is not complete.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please remove "compliance" from "Final Plans" in the titleblocks on all sheets.
Comment Number: 46 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please add Tract E to the private drive on sheet 2.
Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: There pprtions of easements shown on sheet 2 that do not match the subdivision
plat.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221.6820,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
08/17/2012: No Comments.
wstanford(a)fcgov.com
Comment Originated: 08/17/2012
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington(.fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012
10/29/2012: The detail shows a conflict between the existing 30" sewer and the proposed 8". It
appears that the 8" sewer is coming into the side of the 30" as it nears the MH. The small angle
Department: Technical Sei.,.;es
Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, 'county(nifcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: There portions of easements shown on sheets C-004, C-005, C-008, C-009, C-010,
C-011, C-012, C-013 & C-018 that do not match the subdivision plat.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 44
Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Our GIS department would like the street names to change. Please seethe
attachment with the subdivision plat.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 48 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please remove "compliance" from "Final Plans" in the titleblocks on all sheets.
Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: There portions of easements shown on sheets 3 & 4 that do not match the
subdivision plat.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/14/2012
11/02/2012: The boundary & legal description close.
08/14/2012: The legal description & boundary close.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please provide the recording information for all off -sight easements.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please label all unplatted parcels.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please label right of way on Ellis Street & Apex Drive as "ROW Varies".
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please extend the leader to the bearing & distance "N89 51' 10"W 10.01"'.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: The east line of the Stephen E. Weber(811 East Prospect Road) property doesn't
line up with the boundary comer along Apex Drive. Is the bearing & distance correct?
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: What is the dimension line shown through lots 3 & 17?
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please make sure that all easements widths are labeled.
Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please check the distances & square footage of lots 4 through 7.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 11/02/2012
11/02/2012: Please check the square footage of Tract C.
Comment Number: . omment Originated: 08/14/2012
08/14/2012: Contact the City Forester for a final review of existing trees in an on site meeting to
confirm if any mitigation is required.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/31/2012
10/31/2012: : Please add an existing tree note that says in effect -Prior to any tree removal on
the east boundary of duplex lot 26 the property line will be verified to determine ownership of
trees located along the boundary.
Consider addino this sentence at the end of Existing Tree Note #3. The tree on lot number 2
should be removed prior to development of that lot.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224-6152, dmartinea()fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/25/2012
07/25/2012: The developer will need to coordinate and pre -determine the electric meter
locations with Light & Power Engineering (970)221-6700.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 10/16/2012
10/16/2012: A copy of the landscape plan showing planned streetlights was sent to Vignette
Studios on 10-16-12. The streetlights need to be shown on the landscape plan, and street
trees adjusted to provide 40 feet of clearance between lights and trees (15 feet if the tree is an
ornamental type).
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamarguea(�,fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 7
10/31/2012:
Comment Originated: 10/31/2012
1. Please make all the changes called out in the red -lined notes on the Sheets 1, 2, 4, and 5 of
the Compliance Plans (Cover Sheet, Site Plan, Landscape Plan Middle and Landscape Plan
South). The notes on sheet 5 are essentially the same as were made in the last review. Is
there a reason the previous comments were ignored?
2. Please make the changes red -lined on Sheet 18 of 18 (Floodplain Exhibit) in the
Construction Drawings.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 08/17/2012
08/17/2012: The detention pond needs to meet the Detention Pond Landscape Standards as
well as the landscape requirements of the Environmental Planner due to the pond's proximity to
Spring Creek.