HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW - PDR130004 - CORRESPONDENCE -(2) Procedure. Alternative lot plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the
submittal requirements for streets, streetscapes, alleys and easements as set forth in this
Section and landscape plans as set forth in Section 3.2.1. The alternative lot plan shall clearly
identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan
will equally well or better accomplish the purpose of this Subsection (E) than would a plan
which complies with the standards of this Subsection (E).
(3) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative lot plan, the decision maker must first find that the
proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose of this. Subsection (E) as well as, or better
than, a lot plan which complies with the standard of this Subsection. In reviewing the proposed
alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the lot plan provides
screening and protection of the lots adjacent to the arterial street from noise, light and other
negative impacts of the arterial street equally well or better than a plan which complies
Plans will need to show how this section is being met.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 3.5.1 For residential structures Front setback is 30 ft from an arterial ROW and
15 ft from a non -arterial ROW.
Interior side setback is 5ft
Rear setback is 5ft except alley accessed garages are 8ft.
LUC 3.5.1(D)(4) Minimum lot width for single-family detached is 50ft.
LUC 3.5.1(E) Garage Door standards do apply (see section for details).
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 3.2.2(K)(1)(c) Single -Family Detached: For each single-family dwelling there
shall be one (1) parking space on lots with greater than forty (40) feet of street frontage or two
(2) parking spaces on lots with forty (40) feet or less of street frontage.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 3.5.3 This section does apply to the buildings in the Neighborhood Center
and including the school (see section for details).
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 3.2.1 A landscape plan is required for the PDP which includes but is not
limited to detached sidewalks with street trees (see section for further details).
LUC 3.2.4 A lighting plan is required for the Neighborhood Center, park and school.
LUC 3.2.5 An enclosure is required for the trash and recycling for the Neighborhood Center,
park and school.
Page 1 of 14
(b) Accessibility. A.. parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians
and open to the public.
(c) Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple -use turf areas, walking paths, plazas,
pavilions, picnic tables, benches or other features for various age groups to enjoy.
(d) Ownership and Maintenance. Such parks may, in the discretion of the city, be acquired by
the city (through dedication or purchase), or be privately owned and maintained by the
developer or property owners association.
(e) Storm Drainage. 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.
The private park on the south end of the project meets this park requirement, however further
details will be need to show it complies with the accessibility, facilities and storm drainage
requirements.
Staff has determined that he city owned park land designated in the OPD also meets the
standard.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 4.5(E)(1)(a) The local street system provided by the development shall
provide an interconnected network of streets in a manner that results in blocks of developed
land bounded by connecting streets no greater than twelve (12) acres in size.
It appears there are block sizes greater than 12 acres in size, which does not comply.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 4.5(E)(2)(f) Building entrances shall face and open directly onto the adjoining
local street with parking and any service functions located in side or rear yards and
incorporated into the development according to the provisions of this Land Use Code.
The school as illustrated in the ODP does not meet this requirement, this can be addressed in
future PDP or SPAR.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 4.5(E)(3) The maximum height of one-, two- and three-family dwellings shall
be two and one-half (2.5) stories.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 3.6.2 (E) Lots having a front or rear lot line that abuts an arterial street shall
have a minimum depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet.
(1) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an
alternative lot plan that does not meet the standard of this subsection (E) if the alternative lot
plan includes additional buffering or screening that will, in the judgment of the decision maker,
protect such lots from the noise, light and other potential negative impacts of the arterial street
as well as, or better than, a plan which complies with the standard of this subsection (E).
Page 1 of 14
(a) A minimum of four (4) housing types shall be required on any such project development
plan containing thirty (30) acres or more.
Staff has determined that this will require a modification.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: LUC 4.5(D)(3)(a) At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all development
projects greater than forty (40) acres shall be located within three thousand nine hundred sixty
(3,960) feet (three-quarter F/4j mile) of either a neighborhood center contained within the project,
or an existing neighborhood center located in an adjacent development, or an existing or
planned Neighborhood Commercial District commercial project, which distance shall be
measured along street frontage, and without crossing an arterial street
LUC 4.5(D)(3)(C) ...A neighborhood center shall not exceed (5) acres in size, excluding such
portion of the neighborhood center which is composed of a school, park, place of worship or
assembly and/or outdoor space as defined in subparagraph (e) of this Section.
Further clarification is needed to show how the project is meeting this 5 acre maximum.
LUC 4.5(D)(3)(d) The design of neighborhood centers shall be integrated with surrounding
residential areas by matching the scale of nearby residential buildings; providing direct access
from surrounding residential areas; creating usable outdoor spaces; orienting building
entrances to connecting walkways; and, to the extent reasonably feasible,
maintaining/continuing the architectural themes or character of nearby neighborhoods
It is unclear how direct access from the neighborhood center to the residential areas is
achieved.
LUC 4.5(D)(3)(e) A publicly accessible outdoor space such as a park, plaza, pavilion or
courtyard shall be included within or adjacent to every neighborhood center to provide a focal
point for such activities as outdoor gatherings, neighborhood events, picnicking, sitting and
passive and active recreation.
Where is the publicly accessible outdoor space within the neighborhood center?
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: LUC 4.5(D)(6) Either a neighborhood park or a privately owned park, that is at
least one (1) acre in size, shall be located within a maximum of one-third (1/3) mile of at least
ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in any development project of ten (10) acres or larger as
measured along street frontage. Such parks shall meet the following criteria:
(a) Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and
pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall
not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the
park.
Page 1 of 14
Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
05101/2013: Water and wastewater service in this area are provided by the ELCO Water District
(493-2044) and the Boxelder Sanitation District (498-0604).
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013
05/01/2013: The City of Fort Collins has a large water transmission main within an easement that
crosses the northern part of this site.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416-2313, nbeals(cDfcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: Land Use Code (LUC) section 2.3.2(G) Overall development Plans are a Type 2
review.
LUC 4.5(B)(2)(a) Single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings, single-family attached
dwellings and multi -family dwellings with no more than 8 units per building and less than 50
dwelling units or 75 bedrooms are permitted use in the LMN zone district through a Type 1
review.
LUC 4.5(13)(2)(b) Public schools and other open lands are a permitted uses in the LMN zone
district through a Type 1 review.
LUC 4.5(13)(1)(d) Neighborhood Parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan are
a permitted use in the LMN zone district through a Basic Development review.
When uses or plans are combined and one use and/or plan has a higher level of review than
the other all are brought up to the higher level of review.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05103/2013: LUC 4.5(D)(1)(a) Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units
per net acre of residential land, except that residential developments (whether overall
development plans or project development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less shall
have an overall minimum average density of three (3) dwelling units per net acre of residential
land.
LUC 4.5(D)(1)(b) The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole shall be nine
(9) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: LUC 4.5(D)(2)A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual
development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In
order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met:
Page 1 of 14
(hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-gu ideline
s-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the usual method selected to treat 50%
of the runoff; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. Low Impact Development
(LID) requirements went into effect March 11, 2013. These require a higher degree of water
quality treatment for 50% of the new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be
pervious. Please contact Basil Hamdan at 224-6035 or bhamdan@fcgov.com for more
information. There is also more information on the EPA web site at:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/bbfs.cfm?goback=.gde_4605732_mem ber_219392996.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: The drainage outfall for the site is as described in the narrative except that the
narrative doesn't mention that there it a siphon under the Lake Canal which is the responsibility
of the development to maintain.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: An addendum to or possibly anew development agreement maybe required
since there is probably different language required now and the phasing, erosion control
escrow, and certification requirements will most likely change.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: 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 or
a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Design Criteria.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Dry Creek
Master Drainage Plan as Well the City's Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction standards.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 05/08/2013
05/08/2013: The Larimer and Weld Reservoir Company will need to sign the construction plans
since this site is adjacent to their ditch. The Superintendent is Greg Jessen, 482-7635; the
President is Perry Haythorn, 454-3911; and the Office Manager is Don E. Engel, 454-3377. This
is the latest information we have but it is sometimes outdated.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/07/2013: No comments.
a countyPfcgov.com
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
Page 1 of 14
on a contrasting bulAground.
2006 International Fire Code 505.1
Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013
05/09/2013: There are some road connectivity issues which were addressed at the design
review meeting on 5-8-13. In conjunction with that discussion, I recommend that further
consideration be given to the overall road design and in particular, to the "handle" shaped road
immediately east of the pond/wetland. In the present design, this handle -shaped road extends
for at least 1700 feet without providing for any kind of turn around. I would recommend this road
to be redesigned with an alternate connecting point.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
4
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: The previously approved drainage study for this site will need to be revised to
meet present standards. In particular the City's design storm is different that when this project
was approved, which means that the water quantity detention volume may increase. 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 Stormwater Design Criteria Section 1.3.3. If you need
clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse
Schlamat224-6015orjschlam@fcgov.com. In addition the water quality control structure
needs to be updated to the present detail and the site drainage system design will need to
include LID (Low Impact Development) treatment of the runoff. Other modifications to the
construction plans may be needed depending on the desired revisions to the original plans.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: Onsite detention is required for the runoff volume difference between the 100 year
developed inflow rate and the 2 year historic release rate. In the Dry Creek basin the two year
historic release rate is 0.2 cfs/acre. The approved detention pond did include an easement
for detention on the school property so I'm a little skeptical that the area shown for the detention
is large enough. Also the environmental planner may comment that the wetland cannot be
used for detention. That will probably be part of the discussion of the use, ownership, and
maintenance of the wetland as was mentioned in the "Preliminary Design Review Narrative". In
general the City departments do not take on the maintenance of private detention when it is an
integral part of the development's drainage system. The Stormwater Department will not accept
the maintenance responsibility.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: The existing drainage infrastructure has not been certified so we do not have
documentation of what is built compared to what remains to be built even though the system
map shows what was approved.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: Water quality treatment is also required as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater
Manual, Volume 3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Page 1 of 14
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Rob Irish, 970.224-6167, rirish(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: Light & Power has existing electric facilities running along the West side of
Timberline Dr., the North side of Vine Dr. and along both sides of Merganser Dr. to the North
edge of the Bull Run development. The Bull Run development is also fed by Light & Power.
Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will incur system modification
charges.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: Light & Power currently has no electric facilities near the proposed school site.
These would have to be brought from Turnberry & existing Vine Dr. Coordinate with Light &
Power Engineering to bring these facilities to the site.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: A C-1 form and One -line diagram will be required for the proposed school and
park. If 3-phase power will be required for the park coordinate this early on with Light & Power
Engineering.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges
will apply to this development.
Light & Power Engineering 970-221-6700.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970.416.2869, jlynxwiler(apoudre-fire.orq
Topic: General
Comment Number: 01
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: WATER SUPPLY
Fire hydrants must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire
Department. Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of
occupancy.
COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure,
spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter.
2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B
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. Outside the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 500 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter.
2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B
Comment Number: 02
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: PREMISE]DENTIFICATION
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
Page 1 of 14
-What is the long-term management plan for the wetland to ensure the expected diversity and
value of the wetland is maintained?
-Does the developer have the water rights to expand the open water portion of the wetland?
-How does the wetland drain? Does it drain to the southeast where lots 6-10 drain?
-How does creating the opportunity of open water affect the broader area, e.g., is this type of
open water beneficial in this area?
-If migratory waterfowl will be attracted to this pond after restoration, and the buffer standard for
wetlands serving migratory waterfowl is 300', should the distance between the proposed open
water area and the back of the proposed lots be 300'?
-Should more distance be created between the back of the lots and the wetland to prevent
future conflicts?
-Please also have the revised ECS address how the wetland/pond serving for water
quantity/detention purposes (not for water quality) will affect the goals for this wetland?
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: Looking down the road, please include a note on the tree mitigation plan or
landscape plan, as appropriate, that requires a tree removal to occur outside of the migratory
songbird nesting season (February 1-July 31), or that a survey be conducted prior to removal
to ensure no active nests in the area.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: Please note that, contrary to the PDR narrative, the buffer zone for the canal is 50'.
However, more buffer zone adjacent to a canal will increase the value of the canal as a wildlife
corridor and is recommended.
In addition, the PDP will need to identify how it will improve the buffer zone within the canal
(please coordinate with the ditch company) to meet Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g).
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: It is staffs understanding that Natural Areas is not interested in participating in the
wetland's protection on the site, even with the redesign of the plan to include the school and
the park.
From my conversation with Craig Foreman, he relayed the following: "Parks is not interested in
taking ownership of the wetlands area. Our maintenance funding is barely able to keep up with
our planned park acreage and any additional land to maintain will not be in existing or future
budgets." Though Craig also indicated they could help with the natural paths since they will help
provide access to the park.
However, there are other options available to the HOA for obtaining assistance in maintaining
this area, e.g., becoming a Certified Natural Area.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013
05/08/2013: The wetland area needs to be included in the first phase of the PDP, as the HOA
will own that area.
Also, please consider, when putting together the PDP and the enhancement plan for the
wetland area, how key view sheds into the wetland area can be enhanced, e.g., from New Vine,
from the school, park, and neighborhood, etc.
Page 1 of 14
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: Refer to East Ridge Street Plan and Profile sheets 153, 154'and 155 prepared by
TST, Consulting Engineers for preliminary alignment of Timberline Road and Ultimate location of
New Vine and Timberline intersection.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: Additional Right of Way from the adjacent property owner to the west may be
required for the construction of Turnberry Road. If additional Right of Way is required please
provide a letter of intent/understanding from the adjacent property owner prior to public hearing.
This project could also choose to dedicate the additional right of way on its own property at
Turnberry is not required to straddle the section line.
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 05/09/2013
05/09/2013: Right of Way vacations will need to occur for the existing Right of Way within the
Waterfield P.U.D. These takes 2 readings at Council to complete and the first reading will not
occur until this PDP has been approved at Public Hearing. Right of Way along Old Vine may
also be vacated to the appropriate width of its collector classification.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013
05/09/2013: In all cases this project needs to conform with the 660 feet Street Pattern and
Connectivity Standards as shown in section 3.6.3 in the Land Use Code.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013
05/07/2013: An ECS for the project was submitted in January of 2013. The ECS reports that the
main significant natural resource is the 8.46 acre, non -jurisdictional wetland in the western
portion of the site. The canal to the northern boundary of the property is also discussed in the
ECS.
The ECS does note that observation of wildlife use on the site were limited due to the timing of
the survey. Staff recommends a second site visit to assess how wildlife are utilizing the site
during this time of year, which will help guide the design discussions for the wetland area.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: '05/07/2013
05/07/2013: Regarding the request for mitigation within the southeast portion of the wetland to
be mitigated by enhancing the ecological value of the remaining 8.1 acres of the wetland, staff
is open to this suggestion but needs more data to determine if we can be supportive of it.
For example, the site visit mentioned above to reevaluate the value of these wetlands is
critical.
Answers to the following questions would also be helpful:
-What species would be expected to utilize the site if it were enhanced as suggested versus
creating an additional 0.4 acres of similar habitat as that proposed to be lost versus applying
the 100' buffer?
-What criteria will be most appropriate for evaluating project success?
-Does the groundwater in the wetland support such a plan?
Page 1 of 14
expense prior to tha acceptance of completed improvements anu,ur prior to the issuance of
the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: 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.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: 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/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once
the project is finalized.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting
any work on the site.
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: The intersection of New Vine Drive and existing Timberline is not the ultimate
intersection for New Vine Drive and Timberline. Additional discussions are needed to
determine what improvements will be required with this project for the interim intersection of
New Vine and existing Timberline.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: The access proposed onto Timberline North of New Vine Drive will be a restricted
access which is most likely a right -in, right -out only.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: The site plan. shows 2 Pedestrian crossings of New Vine Drive near the west side
of the plan. These crossings should be removed and pedestrians will need to cross the
arterial New Vine at intersections.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: New Vine Drive will need to be designed and constructed from the intersection of
New Vine and Turnberry to Timberline. Construction includes the full 4 lane arterial width,
medians, landscaping, etc. Preliminary design is required 1000' past each of these limits.
Please refer to "East Vine Drive Relocation Alternative Option 2" for additional information.
Right of Way will need to be dedicated for a 4-lane arterial as a part of this project. New Vine
will be eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement for the portions oversized compated to a
local residential.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013
05/06/2013: The site plan shows Merganser Drive intersecting New Vine Drive perpendicularly.
Merganser exists with a curve, is it the intent to realign Merganser so that it intersects
perpendicularly? As it exists today Merganser would probably intersect at a greater angle than
our standards allow. Verify the distance between Merganser and the ultimate intersection of
Timberline for considerations of restricted access or not.
Page 1 of 14
n
05/08/2013: A buffer yard should be provided behind Lots 82 - 88 to establish a transition
between the single family and future multi -family. Landscaping should be planted in the first
phase so as to establish maturity.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013
05/08/2013: Similarly, the multi -family project will be required to provide a minimum 25-foot
wide buffer yard along their west edge adjoining the single family. Since the submittal materials
indicate a potential of 24 dwelling units per acre, this generally means three-story buildings
which will need to comply with Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility and Land Use
Transition. Staff recommends a buffer yard be indicated on the O.D.P. to emphasize the
importance mitigating the impacts associated with multi -family in close proximity to single
family.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013
05/08/2013: At the time of submittal for an O.D.P., a context diagram needs to be provided
showing how the site fits into and relates to the larger surrounding area. Presently, the plan is
shown in isolation.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/13/2013
05/13/2013: Staff is willing to support a Request for Modification to Section 4.5(D)(2)(a) — L-M-N
zone, Mix of Housing, to allow only three housing types versus four subject to meeting the
requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1). This requires that the L-M-N portion of Waterfield, as
proposed, be equal to or better than a plan which otherwise would meet the standard.
Staff recommends that a Request for Modification be accompanied by a comparison with other
approved L-M-N neighborhoods that illustrates where Waterfield, as proposed, would rank
when compared by housing mix. Other approved plans to consider by way of comparison
would be Dry Creek, Linden Park, Maple Hill/Lind Property, Observatory Village, Harvest
Park/Sage Creek, Stanton Creek, Registry Ridge, East Ridge, Trailhead/Waterglen.
If it can be shown that Waterfield is equal to or better than existing approved plans, then that
speaks to supporting the Request for Modification per the applicable standard.
In terms of submitting the data for Waterfield, you may want to consider showing Waterfield
without the M-M-N data and Waterfield with the M-M-N data.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: 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.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: 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.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013
05/03/2013: 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
Page 1 of 14
City of
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 13, 2013
Linda Ripley
Ripley Design, Inc.
401 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Waterfield Preliminary Design Review, PDR130004, Round Number
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: Current Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05/08/2013
05/08/2013: There are a number of lots that back onto a future arterial (New Vine and
Timberline). These lots need to be 150 feet in depth or, if not, need to be significantly buffered
from the sound and visual effects of associated with a four -lane arterial traffic. The area
between the rear property line and public right-of-way should be carefully planned for
landscaping, berming or any combination to mitigate the impacts of traffic. In addition, plat
notes and site plan notes must be added stating that lots may not take any access onto the
adjoining arterial.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/08/2013
05/08/2013: If there are to be fences along the two arterials, then such fences must conform to
the design standards of Section 3.8.11 which calls for quality materials and articulation.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/08/2013
05/08/2013: In the northwest corner, between Lots 22 and 23, a bike / pedestrian path should
be provided that links to the Community Trail along the ditch and provides a direct path to the
future school.
Comment Number: 4
Page 1 of 14
Comment Originated: 05/08/2013