The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSANCTUARY WEST - PDP - 30-07 - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)1 forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all red -lined plans when you re -submit. The number of copies of each document to re -submit is shown on the attached REVISION ROUTING SHEET. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341. Yours Truly, *ev Olt City Planner cc: Susan Joy Solitaire Homes, LLC Loonan & Associates, Inc. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. URS Corporation Terracon Consulting Engineers & Scientists Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. Planning & Zoning file #33-07 Page 17 improvement. In addition, utility crossings in this area are a concern. At this time, Staff is anticipating preliminary design of the swale will be completed in order to coordinate the design in this area. Number: 76 Created: 10/ 31 / 2007 [10/31/07] A meeting should be scheduled with the City, URS, and Loonan 8v Associates to coordinate stormwater design before the next submittal. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Water/Wastewater Number: 77 Created: 10 / 31 / 2007 [10/31/071 Place all curb stops within the utility easements. Number: 78 Created: 10 / 31 / 2007 [10/31/071 Align all water services straight and perpendicular to the main from the main through the curb stops and meter pits. Number: 79 Created: 10/ 31 / 2007 [10/31/071 Use City standard details. Number: 80 Created: 10/ 31 / 2007 [10/31/07] Substitute fire hydrants for the blow -offs shown on the utility plans. Number: 81 Created: 10 / 31 / 2007 [10/31/07] Sewer profiles are normally not required at preliminary; however, with the large number of potential utility conflicts, additional information is needed. Number: 82 Created: 10/ 31 / 2007 [10/31/07] Schedule a meeting to discuss other options to the connections shown to the existing water distribution system (Contact Roger Buffington at 221-6854). Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Gary Lopez Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 10 / 2 5 / 2007 [10/25/071 No issues. This completes staff (and outside reviewing agencies) review and comments at this time. Red -lined plan from City departments are included with this comment letter. Additional comments and red -lined plans may be forthcoming. Another round of staff review really is necessary. This proposal is subject to the 90-day revision re -submittal requirement (from the date of this comment letter, being November 6, 2007) as set Page 16 quality and detention requirements will be met in the ultimate condition. 6. Retention ponds must be sized assuming two times the volume required with zero release from the site. It appears the ponds were sized using two times the volume required using the two-year historic release. Please revise pond sizing calculations to reflect no release from the site. 7. The Hollywood -Irish Pond needs to be shown as a separate pond from the proposed on -site detention pond. Please revise the hydraulic modeling of the Hollywood - Irish Pond to show these two ponds as separate elements designed in series with a staged release from the Hollywood - Irish Pond into the on -site detention pond and a separate staged release from the on -site detention pond into the north -south outfall swale. 8. The volume in the Hollywood - Irish Pond and on -site retention pond will need to be attained without overflow off the site. It appears there may be a mistake in Table 1-2 that may make this possible. Please revisit the "Revised (combined) Capacity" column for elevation 5069. It appears the volume at this elevation is underestimated. Also, please take into account the separate detention volumes for the two separate ponds. 9. Please provide a spillway location and design for the east -west onsite detention pond. This spillway must function in such a way that the runoff is conveyed downstream into the north -south conveyance channel without overflowing into adjacent properties. 10. Please define a plan for how and when retained runoff will be released from the on -site retention ponds. Of utmost concern is who will be responsible for operating the structure, the timing of the release, and ensuring the closure of the structure after the stored runoff is released. Also, please note that the release from the retention portion of the Hollywood - Irish pond will need to occur simultaneously with the release from the Southeast Pond and the North Pond. 11. Please provide construction information for all retention pond outlet structures, including any modifications required for the ultimate condition. 12. According to Table 1-6 of the URS drainage report, the storage volume required for the retention ponds is attained, but the maximum allowable release from the site is exceeded at the required volume. Please revisit the orifice opening calculations so that the maximum allowable release is not exceeded. 13. Please revisit Table 1-11 "Peak Storage Volume" for Element 304 in the URS drainage report. The pond volume in this table appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the report and is well above the stated volume for this pond. 14. Staff would prefer that the box culvert crossing Barton Drive not be constructed at this time since the design of the ultimate channel has not been completed. Staff would prefer cash -in -lieu for this Page 15 in the report appendix. Please include this information in subsequent reports. 3. Please add pertinent floodplain notes per the 50% Floodplain Review Checklist to the Utility Plans. 4. It appears that a portion of the Southeast Pond (Pond 901) is inside the floodway. Per City of Fort Collins drainage criteria, detention is not allowed in the floodway unless the "no rise" criteria can be met and it can be shown that the pond will function correctly. 5. Please show the floodplain and floodway boundaries on the Briarwood Plan and Profile to enable Staff to verify that no fill is being placed in the floodway. Topic: Stormwater Number: 74 Created: 10 / 31 / 2007 [10/31/071 1. Staff is concerned with Outlot D being shown as a park site as this is the location of a future master planned drainage swale. Please revise this area to show a park site that is separate from the future drainage swale. 2. Section One of the URS drainage report refers to a spillway for off -site flows. This design does not appear to have been provided. Please address the routing of off -site flows through the site. 3. Per City of Fort Collins drainage criteria and the West Vine Master Plan, water quality will be required for the entire site, both in the interim and ultimate conditions. In the interim condition, runoff from the site will be released into the New Mercer Ditch, requiring water quality detention. In the ultimate condition, runoff from the site will be conveyed in a naturalized swale from the ultimate New Mercer Ditch crossing to the Forney Pond. In order to protect the naturalized channel, and because the Forney Pond is not planned as a regional water quality pond, water quality will be required. 4. In the ultimate condition, detention for the entire site will be required with a release rate equal to the 2-year historic runoff rate per the West Vine Master Plan. A variance may be granted if proof that both the peak discharge and runoff volume from the site are not increased. The report states that the peak discharge is being increased by less than 1%, however a review of the revised modeling for the developed master planned condition shows that the conveyance elements between the site and the Forney Pond will experience a significant increase in the peak runoff. 5. As stated in the URS drainage report, the construction of the master planned improvements will wipe out the majority of the proposed detention and water quality improvements. As stated in previous comments, detention and water quality will need to be provided in the ultimate condition. Please indicate on the utility plans how water Page 14 Number: 7 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] ACCESS: Blocks 7, 8, 9 and 10 are out of access and require an emergency access easement be dedicated on Outlots F and G. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: ❑ Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. ❑ Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. ❑ Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. ❑ Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane. If a'fire lane cannot be provided, the building shall be fire sprinklered. NOTE: Thank you for the Emergency Access Easements already shown for the other structures out of access (Barton, Beattie, Bacon and the Block 3 drive). 97UFC 901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1 Number: 8 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] PRIVATE DRIVES: Since you labeled Barton Drive and Beattie Lane as private drives, would you also label Bacon Lane as such, just for consistency? Number: 9 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] ADDRESSING: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch (6) numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). NOTE: Addressing issues are a requirement based on the City -adopted Fire Code, and not a request (your General Note 10). 97UFC 901.4.4 Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Floodplain Number: 75 Created: 10/31 /2007 [10/31/07] 1. Please revise all plans, including the Plat, Site Plan, and Drainage and/or Grading Plan to show floodplain information per the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist. For Preliminary submittals, the 50% checklist should be used. This checklist is available on the City website (www.fcgov.com). 2. There is a discussion of the HEC-RAS modeling and results included in the URS drainage report, but the modeling information is not included Page 13 Topic: Utility Plans - Storm Profiles Number: 72 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Minimum cover requirements are not being met. See LCUASS 12.2.2 for minimum depth requirements (2' below subgrade or 3' to finish). This applies to all utilities and any structure (box culvert or otherwise). Topic: Utility Plans - Typical Street Sections Number: 60 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Please label and dimension the 9' UE on both sides of the local street sections. There doesn't appear to be enough room to grant that along the back of the street widening at the corner of Eyestone and Barton. How will the utilities serve this side of the street? Will need to submit a variance request in accordance with 1.9.4 so that we can route to all utilities, both city and private, for their review and approval. You can do this prior to the next submittal if you wish. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Alan Rutz Topic: General Number: 2 Created: 10 / 29 / 2007 [ 10/ 29 / 07] See redline of Sheet 10 of the Preliminary Utility Plan Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann Topic: Fire Number: 5 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter; residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800- foot centers thereafter; residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. PLEASE NOTE: While all structures appear to have a fire hydrant within the required distance, I would like to have several of them relocated, to better facilitate establishing a water supply by fire apparatus. Please contact me to discuss which hydrants are affected. These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 97UFC 901.2.2.2 Number: 6 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 FIRE LANE: Regarding the Emergency Access Easement on Block 3 - since minimum width of a fire lane is 20 feet, parking will not be allowed on the west curb of that roadway. Page 12 Topic: Utility Plans - Plan & Profiles Number: 65 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Please remove all unnecessary layers (stormwater, utilities, etc). It will help make these sheets more legible and scannable. Remove all unnecessary sight distance triangles, all sheets. They are only required where they fall outside of row. Number: 66 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Please see figures 7-17 and 7-18 for minimum VC requirements. There are several locations where the minimums are not being met. Number: 67 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Please clean these sheets up a little for the next round of review and reconsider the match line placement on some of them. Number: 68 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Please call out all the dimensions shown on figure 24 for all street widenings so that I can determine whether or not they meet standard. Will verify when the information is provided with the next round of review. The one under most question is the one located at the east end of Barton. Number: 69 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Suggest placing the typical street sections on the cover sheet so that there is more room on the P&P sheets. These are going to get pretty busy in Final Compliance when the FLs are added. Number: 70 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Heads up for FC - CL stationing is required and would require station equations on all horizontal curves. However, you may provide separate FL stationing as long as you do one of two things: either provide a cross section at all PCs and VCs (beginning, middle and end) or spot elevations on the plan view in the same location. Label the cross slopes to at least one decimal point in those areas. That is the only way we can see that the min/max cross slope requirements are being met. Number: 71 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Need to show profiles to the CL of the intersected street. Number: 73 Created: 10/31 /2007 [10/31/071 Barton Street - Need to show the box culvert in the profiles. See 12.2.2 for minimum depth requirements. Page 11 Number: 53 Created: 10/30/2007 [ 10./ 30/ 07] Remove all reference to "alley" on all sheets. They must be called Private Drives instead. Number: 54 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Would it help to add a separate Horizontal Control and Demo sheet? It might help clear up the plan set a little bit and make it more legible and scannable. Number: 55 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Sidewalks shown on the Site Plan are not shown on the Utility Plan set. All plan sets must match and provide the same information. Number: 56 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 There are a couple of small existing irrigation ditches shown but what are you doing with them? Are you removing? Relocating? Something needs to be done as they cross individual lots. Each and every affected ditch owner will require a signature block on each sheet where their ditch is shown to be impacted. Number: 92 Created: 11 / 2 / 2007 [ 11 / 2 / 07] Please see the redlined checklist E4 for other comments. Several items were marked off as complete but in fact, were not and in some cases, not even required. Please go through the highlighted items required to go to hearing and make sure that they have been properly addressed on the plans and then resubmit the checklist with the next submittal. Number: 93 Created: 11 / 2 / 2007 [ 11 / 2 / 07] See redlines for other comments. Topic: Utility Plans - Grading Number: 57 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 The existing and proposed contours are indistinguishable. Sidewalks aren't shown or they are there but in the same line weight as the contours. Need to dimension and label all sidewalks. Please see LCUASS for other information that must be shown on the utility plans. Number: 61 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Contours must be extended for a minimum of 50' beyond the project limits and proposed must tie into existing. Number: 64 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Label all slope ratios. Page 10 Number: 23 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Page 2 under Proposed Access to the Site - The second to the last sentence is incorrect. The eastern access point is NOT in an improved city row. The row is dedicated but there are no existing improvements within it. Number: 24 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Page 5 states that Mountain View Junior High School lies just to the south of the site. Poudre High School lies to the south. This is incorrectly stated throughout the report. Topic: Utility Plans - Cover Sheet Number: 52 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Remove "Preliminary" in the project title, title block and the index. Number: 59 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Please provide two benchmarks. Number: 91 Created: 11 / 2 / 2007 [ 11 / 2 / 071 Remove "Preliminary" in the title, title blocks and index, all sheets. Topic: Utility Plans - Erosion Control Number: 62 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Re -vegetation methods and specific notes have not been provided. Number: 63 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Is any portion of this site within a floodplain? The checklist on E4 has checked this off as "yes" however no floodplain is shown delineated on the plan set. Topic: Utility Plans -General Number: 39 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] The plans do meet the scanning requirements in Appendix E6. They are extremely difficult to read as too many similar line weights are used, existing matches proposed and much information is missing. Please bring the plans up to speed with the next round of review so that a more detailed review can be provided. Number: 40 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Please provide a New Mercer Ditch Company signature block. They will need to sign the mylars before they are brought to the city for signatures once we get to that point. Page 9 Number: 86 Created: 10 / 31 / 2007 [ 10/ 31 / 07] From Technical Services: I. Boundary and legal close. 2. See numerous differences between the plat and the legal. 3. Please review the definition of a "block" and how it applies to this plat. 4. Ownership, usage and maintenance of all tracts and outlots must be defined (please provide a tract table). 5. How was LaPorte Avenue dedicated? 6. Please explain on this plat that the south line of Green Acres does not adjoin this plat. 7. Vicinity Map needs work. 8. Public Streets and Private Drives should not share the same name (ie: Barton) . Topic: Site Plan Number: 41 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/07] Easements are called out but not identified. Number: 47 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/071 Sight distance is misspelled as Site. Topic: Soils Report Number: 25 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/07] The soils report indicates that groundwater was encountered within 5' of the existing surface (see LCUASS 5.6.1) so an additional Subsurface Water Investigation report is required. Topic: Traffic Study Number: 22 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] The Traffic Study needs to address the Pedestrian Level of Service requirements to and from the .site. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for this and other requirements. More than likely some sort of sidewalk along LaPorte will be necessary to get the kids back and forth to school. This could be either in concrete at the ultimate location if you want reimbursement for the oversized portion OR it can be in asphalt with no reimbursement. The sidewalk along this development's frontage along LaPorte must be constructed at the ultimate with an escrow for the curb, gutter and possibly the parkway landscaping. It is not known at this time whether or not the trees along LaPorte will be planted now or later. We'll determine that in Final Compliance. Page 8 Topic: Plat Number: 26 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Please update the plat language to the current. Email me at sjoy@fcgov.com and I'll send you the word doc. Number: 27 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] The Vicinity Map does not meet our scanning requirements (refer to Appendix E6). Use a one -line map instead, no shading. Number: 29 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Provide a tract table which states who owns and maintains each tract. Number: 30 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] The Line and Curve Tables are missing the column titles. Number: 31 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] No need to run the easement or row or PL line weight along or on top of the row. Please remove the duplicate line weights in those areas. Number: 32 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] The legend is incomplete. Not all line weights are shown. Number: 33 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] There are several easements shown that are not identified in any way. Need to label the easement with what it is and who it belongs to. One easement is shown as a CL but no width is identified. See redlines. Number: 34 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] A 10' Canal Buffer is labeled along the eastern property boundary but the layer appears to be turned off. Number: 35 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Sight Distance is misspelled as Site in many locations. Number: 36 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Provide all street names. Number: 37 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Sheet 4 appears to have many layers turned off. Unable to review in any detail. Number: 38 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] The row is shown using several different line weights - which one is correct? Page 7 Number: 46 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/071 All driveways must be perpendicular to the street plus or minus 10 degrees for a minimum of 25'. The driveway to block 3 is not in compliance. Number: 48 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 A ped connection is more than likely going to be required from Tavelli to the sidewalk in the park site if going around up or down the block doesn't meet the ped level of service requirements. The TIS will need to look into this. See the site plan redlines for the area in question. Number: 50 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/071 Construct Bauder and Briar -wood to the PCs as shown, provide the interim sidewalk connections to meet the Ped LOS and provide an interim asphalt patch from the PCs to LaPorte. Enough FL information for LaPorte will need to be provided to see how Briarwood and Barton are tying into it. Cash in lieu of constructing the ultimate curb, gutter and street section in that area must be escrowed prior to the first building permit. An estimate for their construction costs will be required for the City's review and approval and that number will go in the Development Agreement. Number: 51 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/07] No building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 1 at the east end of Kruse will be issued until the street frontage along those lots is complete. A note on the Site and Utility Plans indicating this is required and it will also be stated in the Development Agreement. (Could adjust the turnaround to get 2 more lots and just restrict Lot 1, Blockl). Number: 58 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/071 Existing features must be shown for a minimum of 150' beyond the project limits. Number: 84 Created: 10 / 31 / 2007 [10/31/071 From Transportation Planning: Pedestrian/bicycle access needs to be provided to Poudre High School with direct connection to the ped access proposed on the project site. Number: 85 Created: 10/31 /2007 [10/31/07] Site/Landscape/Utility/Plat - Please review comments under all topics and coordinate the plan sets so that all plan sets present the same information. Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 49 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/071 Please correct all line over text per Appendix E6. Page 6 the 15' UE. Currently the plat is showing an additional 20' of row dedicated on your side of the centerline. Number: 21 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Per Conceptual Review, this development is responsible for improving LaPorte to 36' (2-12' travel lanes and 2-6' bike lanes) in the interim to Taft Hill. A preliminary design (including 500' of offsite design) is due prior to going to hearing. Keep in mind minimum cover requirements over any structure. The final design will be due in Final Compliance. Number: 28 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] What exactly is a trail easement? Is it public or private? Who is it dedicated to? A Trail Easement is typically specific to Parks and Rec when there is a regional trail involved. Should this be an access easement instead? Number: 42 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/071 Need to show existing streets, driveways, sidewalks within 50' of the project limits and show how this development's proposed improvements are tying into the existing, all plan sets. This would be for the neighborhoods to the north and across the street on LaPorte. Number: 43 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] This project is responsible for the design and construction of Webb Ave to the property line plus 500' of offsite preliminary design. At minimum, Webb Ave must be constructed to the PC's (including the ped ramps) and type III barricades must be provided. If any portion of the road is not constructed (from the PCs to the PL), then this development is required to escrow the cash necessary to complete the street. An estimate for our review and approval will be required in FC and that number will go into the development agreement to be paid prior to the first building permit. Also, need to watch whether the street is tipping up or down because the drainage has to either stay on site or a drainage easement from the offsite property owner will be required. Number: 44 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] The ped ramp at Barton and Bauder must be removed. We do not allow them at these locations because it is too dangerous for pedestrians to cross the street there. Number: 45 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] There is a sidewalk shown crossing another lot on the north side of the drainage channel. An easement is required from the affected property owner in Final Compliance, a letter of intent from that owner to grant this easement is necessary in order to go to hearing. Page 5 Number: 96 Created: 11 /6/ 2007 [11/6/07] It is doubtful that the public street name Barton Drive can be continued onto the private drive at the northwest corner of the development. It would seem awkward to have both the public street and the private drive the same name. Number: 100 Created: 11 / 6 / 2007 [ 11 / 6/ 071 Please see red -lined Site 8v Landscape Plans for Planning & Zoning comments. Topic: Landscape Plans Number: 98 Created: 11 / 6/ 2007 [ 11 / 6/ 07] On the Landscape Plan, please show topography in Outlot A/drainage channel. Number: 99 Created: 11 / 6/ 2007 [11/6/071 On Sheet 9 of 9, Landscape Notes and Details, please ensure by Final Plan stage that the Minimum Species Diversity for trees, per Section 3.2.1(D)(3) of the Land Use Code, is being met. Topic: Site Plan Number: 97 Created: 11 / 6 / 2007 [11/6/07] More information is needed about the surrounding land uses and zoning. See red -lined Site Plans. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Site Plan Number: 83 Created: 10 / 31 / 2007 [ 10/ 31 / 07] Show top of bank on site and landscape plan. Buffer setback will be established from that line. Need to revisit 10' proposed buffer in light of not delineating off -site wetlands adjacent to site. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Utilities Number: 14 Created: 10 / 30/ 2007 [10/30/07] Don Kapperman of Comcast Cable indicated that they have no problems or concerns with this development request. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: General Number: 20 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] LaPorte is a 2 lane arterial according to the Master Street Plan. A total of 84' of row plus a 1 S' UE is required. There is an existing 60' so this development is responsible for dedicating an additional 12' of row plus Page 4 Number: 16 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Rick Lee of the Building Department indicated that they have no building code concerns with this current submittal. A copy of the Codes and Standards that will be enforced for future residential construction is attached to this comment letter. Please note that a Pre -submittal Code Review Meeting is required. Number: 17 Created: 10/ 30/ 2007 [10/30/071 Tim Varrone of the Geographical Information Systems Department indicated that all of the proposed new street names have been verified and reserved in the Larimer County Street database. Number: 18 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/07] Bonnie Ham of the U.S Postal Service offered the following comments: a. Mail service: Centralized delivery using a minimum of 7 centralized box units (CBU, Type III) is required. Please revise the plan to show the required CBU locations as approved by the U.S. Postal Service. In all cases the CBU's must be located in the public right-of-way or a designated easement. b. Please be advised that the responsibility of purchase and maintenance of the CBU's, with the concrete pads, is that of the owner/ developer/ builder/ HOA. Prior to occupancy within the development approved mail receptacles must be in place. A Delivery Agreement must be in place prior to any delivery of mail. Number: 19 Created: 10 / 30 / 2007 [10/30/07] Megan Harrity of the Larimer County Assessor's office indicated that, upon review of the Sanctuary West subdivision plat, Block 6 is missing Lot S. Also, Outlots are lettered A through L but Outlot J could not be located on the plat. Number: 94 Created: 11 / 6/ 2007 [11/6/07] Question if Lots 7 - 11, Block 2 and Lots 2 & 3, Block 5 are solar -oriented lots. This would bring the percentage down to about 53%. Please address with a revised alternative compliance request. Number: 95 Created: 11 /6/2007 [ 11 / 6/ 07] Regarding the modification request for the requirement set forth in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) - Orientation to a Connecting Walkway, was any alternative plan considered that satisfied this requirement for Blocks 14, 15, and 16? The Preferred Plan is a plan that is equal to Alternative Plans A & B. Page 3 These buildings will undoubtedly be larger than the single-family homes and their locations on this property relative to existing residences warrant a review of the buildings. The elevations must show general heights, horizontal wall lengths, building materials, and color schemes that will enable City staff to evaluate them against the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility of the Land Use Code. Topic: General Number: 4 Created: 10 / 29 / 2007 [10/29/071 Section 3.5.2(B)(1) of the Land Use Code sets forth the requirement for at least 4 different types of housing models for any residential development containing 100 or more single-family detached or two-family detached (duplex) dwelling units. Each housing model shall have at least 3 characteristics which clearly and obviously distinguish it from the other housing models. This includes different floor plans, exterior materials, roof lines, garage placement, placement of the footprint on the lot, and/or building face. The applicant shall include in the application for development review documentation showing how the development will comply with this requirement. Number: 10 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] A copy of a letter received from Gene Fischer, the attorney for the New Mercer Ditch Company, is attached to this comment letter. It says that there are potential ditch crossings and storm drainage issues that must be addressed. Also, there must be a 15' maintenance easement measured from the ditch bank. Number: 11 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] The New Mercer Ditch is in the area but the Site Plan and Landscape Plan (and to some degree the subdivision plat) do not clearly show where the ditch is. Please show and label the ditch appropriately. Number: 12 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] John Little of the Poudre School District indicated that they have no problems or concerns with this development request. Number: 13 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Craig Foreman of the Park Planning Department indicated that they have no problems or concerns with this development request. Number: 15 Created: 10/30/2007 [10/30/07] Kathleen Walker of Transfort indicated that current bus service travels eastbound on LaPorte Avenue, with bus stops on the south side of LaPorte Avenue at Sunset Street, Impala Drive, and Briarwood Road. Page 2 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Cityof Fort Collins Vignette Studios Date: 11/6/2007 c/o Terence Hoaglund 144 North Mason Street, Suite 2 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff has reviewed your submittal for SANCTUARY WEST, PDP - TYPE 1, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Timothy Wilder Topic: General Number: 87 Created: 11 / 1 / 2007 [11/1/07] The project seems consistent with the Northwest Subarea Plan in terms of land uses and density and the accommodation of the Solider Creek restoration/ trail. Topic: Site Plan Number: 88 Created: l l / 1 / 2007 [ 11 / 1 / 07] Other comments from transportation will probably reflect this, but a pedestrian connection needs to be made on the west part of the project through to the subdivision on the north. Number: 89 Created: l l / 1 / 2007 [1 l/ 1/071 Consider formalizing the landscaping with more uniform trees on Block 16 in the open space between the lots. Number: 90 Created: l l / 1 / 2007 [ 11 / 1 / 07] Although according to Stormwater Dept., a channel will be needed on the park site near the southeast entrance, a trail (like the one shown on the site plan) will still be needed to provide a connection for tying into a future Soldier Creek trail to the south. Also, native plantings should be shown where possible along the stormwater channels to provide a more natural appearance (this comment may also be provided by natural resources dept.). Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Architectural Elevations Number: 3 Created: 10 / 29 / 2007 [10/29/07] Architectural elevations are required as part of a Project Development Plan submittal. Typically staff does not require these for single-family detached residential projects and this project will be no different. However, (4-sided) architectural character elevations for the proposed two-family dwellings (duplexes) must be submitted for review. Page i