HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAKEVIEW - PDP - PDP130026 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWAlso, you may select a more decorative fixture than the public street fixture. In addition, you may consider
alternative illumination levels that may be more sensitive to the dark sky environment.
Response: We have submitted a Lighting Plan that meets these criteria.
12. There are four lots in the southwest comer that could be designed to accommodate rear -loaded garages.
This would allow larger garages and free up space for a wider building footprint along the street. Also, for
corner lots, there are opportunities for garages to be side -loaded. Rear and side -loaded garages do not
have to be recessed behind the front building line.
Response: The Site Plan has changed since this Concept Review and it will not be possible to have any
rear load garages.
13. The proposed development project is subject to a Type 1 review and public hearing, the decision maker
for Type 1 hearings is an Administrative Hearing Officer. The applicant for this development request is
not required to hold a neighborhood meeting for a Type 1 hearing, but if you would like to have one to
notify your neighbors of the proposal, please let me know and I can help you in setting a date, time and
location for a meeting. Neighborhood Meetings area great way to get public feedback and avoid
potential hiccups that may occur later in the review process.
Response: We have held a neighborhood meeting on May 6.
14. Please see the Development Review Guide at www.fcgov.com/drg. This online guide features a color
coded flowchart with comprehensive, easy to read information on each step in the process. This guide
includes links to just about every resource you need during development review.
Response: Noted.
15. This development proposal will be subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code
(LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards. The entire LUC is available for your review on
the web at http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm.
Response: Noted.
16. If this proposal is unable to satisfy any of the requirements set forth in the LUC, a Modification of Standard
Request will need to be submitted with your formal development proposal. Please see Section 2.8.2 of
the LUC for more information on criteria to apply for a Modification of Standard.
We have already processed an approved Modification of Standard for lot size/home ratio to allow for a lot
area 1.75 times the floor area of the house. As part of this submittal, we have included a proposed
Modification of Standard to allow for minimum 15' front setback to living area portion of house, porch, or
side -load garage.
17. Please see the Submittal Requirements and Checklist at:
http://www.fcqov.com/developmentreview/applications.php.
Response: Noted.
18. The request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Community
Development and Neighborhood Services office. The fees are due at the time of submittal of the required
documents for the appropriate development review process by City staff and affected outside reviewing
agencies. Also, the required Transportation Development Review Fee must be paid at time of submittal.
Response: Noted.
19. When you are ready to submit your formal plans, please make an appointment with Community
Development and Neighborhood Services at (970)221-6750.
Response: Noted.
4. From Section 4.4(D): The minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. Minimum lot width is 60 feet. Minimum
front yard setback is 20 feet. Minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet. Minimum side yard setback is 5 feet
interior and 15 feet along a street. Maximum building height is 28 feet.
Response: We will meet all requirements of the R-L district with the following exceptions:
1. Approved Modification of Standard for lot size/home ratio to allow for a lot area 1.75 times the floor
area of the house
2. Proposed Modification of Standard to allow for minimum 15' front setback to living area portion of
house, porch, or side -load garage.
5. From 3.5.2(E): Street -facing garage doors must be recessed a minimum of four feet behind either the front
facade of the ground floor or a covered porch (measuring at least 6 feet by 8 feet). Garage doors shall
not comprise more than 50% of the ground floor street -facing linear building frontage. Corner lots are
exempt if the house and garage face different streets.
Response: We meet these criteria, with the exception of one home model where we seek an exception to
this criteria as allowed in the Code 3.5.2(E)(5). For the ranch model home 5030 (see attached
Architectural Elevations), we propose an alternative to 3.5.2(E)(1) specific to this model. Instead of having
the street facing garage doors setback a minimum 4' behind the "front fapade of the ground floor living area
portion of the dwelling or a covered porch," we propose that the street facing garage doors be setback a
minimum of 10' behind the front fapade of the side load garage, which has residential features such as
windows, masonry, and/or other features complementary to the front facade. We believe that given the
architectural treatments on the front facade of the side load garage portion of the house, along with the 10'
setback of the front load garage, our proposal meets the intent of the Land Use Code to "line streets with
active living spaces, create pedestrian -oriented streetscapes, and provide variety and visual interest in the
exterior design of residential buildings." We will meet the standard code for recessed garage doors for the
other 3 home models. See Architectural Building Elevations.
6. Streets maybe public. If so, then consideration should be given to dedicating and improving public
streets across the existing church parking out to both Lemay Avenue and Drake Road. Or, at minimum,
traversing the parking lot could be accomplished by Street -Like Private Drives as defined in Section
3.6.2(L). Or, all internal streets could be Street -Like Private Drives.
Response: We propose Street -Like Private Drives for all proposed newly constructed internal streets.
7. Any private access across the church parking lot would need to be secured with an easement.
Response: We propose an access easement on the Plat to the Church for joint access to E. Daek Road,
and we propose an easement by separate document through the Church's retained property to accomplish
joint access to E. Lemay Ave.
8. Section 3.8.11(C)(3) requires that fences be no more than six feet high if located within any required rear
yard setback area or within any side yard setback area in a rear yard.
Response: We propose 6' maximum height on privacy fences.
9. Land set aside for telecommunications equipment, cabinets, and the like must be placed within an
easement and be located so as to not cause any sight distance problems for vehicles, bicycles and
pedestrians.
Response: Acknowledged.
10. A Landscape Plan will be required for the treatment of the common areas. Note that there are landscaping
standards for the stormwater detention pond.
Response: Acknowledged.
11. If the streets are private, then you have the option to create a customized street lighting program. You
may elect, for example, to use fully -shielded, down -directional fixtures versus the typical public street light.
Response: Acknowledged. See response 6. Signage will be provided indicating private ownership.
8. A sight distance easement would be needed for the existing driveway out to Drake Road. The amount of
sight distance easement needed was reduced with a variance request approved for the previous project
on the property.
Response: A new variance request is being provided by LSC for this project.
9. This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are necessary for this
project. A 15' utility easement behind the right-of-way on Drake Road is required.
Response: Acknowledged. There is already an existing 15' utility easement on the south side or Drake
Road.
10. Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is
finalized.
Response: Acknowledged.
11. A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site.
Response: Acknowledged,
Department: Electric Engineering
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
1. Light & Power has existing electric facilities running adjacent to this site along Drake Rd. Any
modification or relocation to existing electric facilities will be at the owners expense.
Response: Acknowledged.
2. Electric Capacity Fees and Building Site charges will apply to this development.
Response: Acknowledged.
Current Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Section 3.6.2 requires lots that back on to an arterial (Drake Road) to have a minimum lot depth of 150 feet
or be buffered by a common area. The 60-foot buffer indicated along Drake would satisfy this standard.
Response: We provide an effective area of 150' between the front lot line/private drive easement and the E.
Drake Road ROW. We feel this is the best method to preserve the several mature trees on top of the
existing berm and providing common area landscape in the approximately 30'-70' Tract A as a developer
installed, HOA maintained landscape buffer. This would also allow the rear fences of the northernmost
Lots 1-7 to be setback from E. Drake Road and not run directly adjacent to the existing sidewalk along
Drake. Please see the Site Plan, Sheet 2 that demonstrates a cross section through the northern most
lots and the buffer area.
2. The names of the new local streets must not conflict with or sound like any existing street name within the
911 emergency calling area. We can provide a link of existing street names for your convenience.
Response: We have proposed street names that are unique in Larimer County.
3. Each lot should feature one two-inch caliper deciduous shade tree located in the parkway between the
sidewalk and curb.
Response: This criteria is met and shown on the Landscape Plan.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcqov.com
1. 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: Acknowledged.
2. The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional
information on these fees, please see: hftp://www.fcqov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
Response: Acknowledged.
3. 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: Acknowledged.
4. Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and
determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning
for their requirements as well.
Response: Acknowledged.
5. 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.larimer.org/engineerinq/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
Response: Acknowledged. A Traffic Impact Study has been submitted.
6. The conceptual site plan appears to wish to create a public street system internal to the project as well
as create a public street from the existing drive aisle that intersects with Drake Road. To establish a
public street system internal to the site that connects to the existing drive aisle requires that the existing
drive aisle be converted to a public street. Converting this drive aisle to a public street would entail
ensuring its horizontal and vertical designs and alignments meets City standards, and the structural
integrity of the pavement and subgrade meets City standards. Existing drive aisles that intersect with the
new public street would need to be reconstructed into a City standard driveway approach. In addition, the
existing drive aisle that runs along the south side of the church and connects to Lemay Avenue might be
considered as promoting "through traffic" which per 3.6.2(L)(a) of the Land Use Code, might be
problematic in making the internal roads public but this drive aisle potentially being utilized as cut -through
in a public to private to public scenario. In short there are code related concerns with the implementation
of public streets into the development and further discussion should occur if the applicant would wish to
pursue the use of public streets for the project.
Response: Streets are currently planned to be private but will be designed and constructed per
LCUASS standards.
7. A potential alternative that could be explored is keeping the new roadways and existing drive aisles as a
private drive road network. Private drives would be maintained by the property owner(s) and would not
need to be designed and built in accordance with City standards. From a Land Use Code perspective
however, the private drives may need to comply with "Street -Like Private Drive" standards specified in
Section 3.6.2(L)(c). Signage indicating the private ownership and maintenance responsibilities would be
required.
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970416-2869, ilynxwiler@poudre-fire.ora
1. FIRE ACCESS
The street plan is acceptable and I don't foresee any problem with fire access.
Response: Acknowledged.
2. WATER SUPPLY
Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy.
Residential requirements: Within the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter.
2006 Intemational Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B
Response: Acknowledged. Hydrants provided per indicated spacing.
3. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from the street
fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting
background.
2006 International Fire Code 505.1
Response: Acknowledged.
Provide a plan for street naming for review and approval.
Response: Proposed street names are included on the Plat.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com
1. The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit plans that "...(4)
protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree
having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. As several of the trees within this site
have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City
Forester (221-6361) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that
could result from the proposed development.
Response: Acknowledged. Trees are to be preserved to the greatest extent possible and will
remain within lots where practical.
2. 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. Reveille Bluegrass is one option for having bluegrass lawns and
using less water.
Response: We propose only limited areas of turf area along Drake Rd, at our entrance, and at
the tree lawns. At the south of the site we propose as native grasses and more native
vegetation in and around the detention pond.
pond is needed so that all the runoff does not have to drain through the pond.
Response: In order to provide a storm sewer from the outlet of the Lakeview pond to the outlet of
the City pond, a pipe would have to be installed at essentially existing ground elevation. This pipe
would have to be buried and fill would occur within the pond, thereby reducing the existing
capacity of the pond. Due to the low existing elevations, lack of existing cover, an attempt not to fill
within the existing pond and required sanitary sewer to serve the property within this area, a storm
sewer is not practical. Hydraulically, there is negligible difference during a storm event between
discharging into the pond at the base of the berm separating the ponds and discharging very
close the City pond outlet. The only substantial difference is how much open water would be
exposed in the City pond during small storm events.
To address the concern of additional standing water from this project within the Fort Collins
owned pond, a pan for low flows is proposed within the FC pond from the Regency Lakeview pond
outlet to the existing concrete pan. Additional capacity can be provided in the pan if desired
however, with a 3.7-cfs maximum release, the proposed pan appears sufficient. The sub -drain is
proposed to be rerouted to the existing outfall, around the pond to match the existing flow
condition. It is requested that the pan and rerouted sub -drain satisfy the requirement.
7. The Stormwater Utility anticipates that City Council will be approving new Low Impact Development (LID)
requirements that will go into effect March 1, 2013. Please contact Basil Hamdan at 224-6035 or
bhamdan@fcgov.com for more information. The present draft requires that 50% of the new impervious
area must be treated by an LID method and 25% of new parking lots must be pervious.
Response: Snouts, Sedimentation Forebays, WQCV Capture, Extended Detention Basin and a
Micro -pool are proposed with this development to satisfy the LID requirement. Pans within the
pond are preferred to define the bottom of the required detention storage volume and to minimize
the potential for mosquito reproduction but can be removed if desired to create grass -lined
swales. Please advise if this is desired by the City. No parking lots are proposed with this
development where pervious pavement can be implemented. There is a serious concern for
streets degradation with pervious pavement in areas of high traffic. To minimize the future cost to
residents, standard pavement is recommended for these roadways.
8. The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00/acre ($0.1467/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/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-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, cost of the measures, or
a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Fire Authority
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com
1. It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements and fees are based
on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and proposed impervious areas is required.
Response: A comparison of existing and proposed impervious areas is provided in appendix A of the
drainage report.
2. A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by
a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. The drainage report must address the four -step
process for selecting structural BMPs. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage
facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer and there is a final site inspection required when
the project is complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance
organization. The erosion control requirements are in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Section 1.3.3,
Volume 3, Chapter 7 of the Fort Collins Amendments. If you need clarification concerning this section,
please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or ischlam@fcgov.com.
Response: Acknowledged. Permanent BMPs are shown in the PDP utility plans or discussed
in the Drainage report. Erosion control and water quality controls are preliminarily addressed in
the drainage report. Final erosion control plans for construction and details for permanent BMP
structures will be provided with FDP.
3. The design of most of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Foothills Drainage
Master Drainage Plan, and part of it must conform to the Spring Creek Drainage Master Plan. The design
must also comply with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual.
Response: Acknowledged.
4. Normally onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic release rate for water quantity. In this case the
release rate is probably limited by the pipe size out of the Eastborough pond; so the design engineer
will need to analyze the outfall system capacity. Parking lot detention for water quantity is allowed as
long as it is not deeper than one foot.
Response: Acknowledged. The release is being designed as 3.7-cfs per previous reports.
5. Water quality treatment is also required as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3 -
Best Management Practices (BMPs).
(hftp://www.fcgov. com/util ities/bu siness/b u i lde rs-and-developers/development-forms-guidelines-reg u lati
ons/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the usual method selected for water quality treatment;
however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged.
Response: Acknowledged,
6. The portion of the site in the Spring Creek basin has four outfalls that all end up draining into Parkwood
Lake. The portion in the Foothills basin appears to surface flow to the southeast corner of the site and
into the Eastborough detention pond. There is one pipe shown draining into the pond. There is also
sub -drain crossing the site that also drains into the Eastborough detention pond. Due to the amount of
increased runoff from this proposal a storm sewer system from the site to the outfall of the Eastborough
1. Approved Modification of Standard for lot size/home ratio to allow for a lot area 1.75 times the floor
area of the house
2. Proposed Modification of Standard to allow for minimum 15' front setback to living area portion of
house, porch, or side -load garage.
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fc, oq v.com
1. Existing water mains and sanitary sewers include a 12-inch water main and a 27-inch sewer in Drake, a
16-inch water main and a 12-inch sewer in Lemay and an 8-inch water main in the existing drive extending
south from Drake (east of the church).
Response: Acknowledged.
2. At the present, it appears that water service will come from the dead end water main extending south
from Drake. For purposes of reliability, it is important to have the water system well looped for a
development of this size. An additional connection to the water main in Lemay is needed.
Response: A loop is proposed through the subdivision to the 12" waterline in Drake that will serve the same
purpose of providing a secondary water supply source from Lemay at a fraction of the cost. There will be a
valve installed on the 12" to isolate the two connection points so that in the case of a break, the line around
the break can be shut down and the subdivision will continue to be served from the Drake 12" main in the
direction away from the break. The 8" waterline proposed throughout the subdivision will provide for very
little head loss and pressures should remain fairly consistent with those at the 12" main. This is consistent
with other nearby subdivisions that feed off of the main 12" infrastructure in the area. We request that
standard looping to Drake will be sufficient instead of requiring the Lemay connection.
3. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these
requirements can be found at: http://www.fcQov.com/standards
Response: Acknowledged.
4. Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Transfort
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-224-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com
Currently no transit service is provided 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 accomodate
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: An easement is being provided near the access to Drake per our conversation.
,.F,�`o'rt�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
Conceptual Review Letter with Applicant Responses (in red)
February 14, 2013
Richard Cross
Century Communities
8390 E. Crescent Parkway, Suite 650
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Re: 2700 S Lemay - SF Lots
Description of project: This is a request to plat 42 lots for single family detached homes located at 2700
South Lemay Avenue (Parcel # 87302-12-901). The site is located on the east side of the Christ Center
Community Church property and zoned Low Density Residential. The minimum lot size are required to be
6,000 square feet. The estimated size of the homes would range between 1,800 and 3,200 square feet.
Single family detached dwellings are subject to administrative (Type 1) review in the Low Density Residential
Zone District.
Please see the following summary of comments regarding the project request referenced above. The
comments offered informally by staff during the Conceptual Review will assist you in preparing the detailed
components of the project application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the
time of formal review of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in
the review process, 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: Zoning
Contact: GaryLopez, 970-416-2338, glopez@fcgov.com
1. Please note minimum setbacks and other Residential Low -Density (R-L) zoning requirements located in
LUC 4.4.
Response: We will meet all requirements of the R-L district with the following exceptions: