HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE PDP, 4TH FILING - PDP - 33-01G - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: October 8, 2002 TO: Xcel Energy
PROJECT: #33-01G Fossil Lake PDP — 4th Filing - Type I
(LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
October 30, 2002
0 No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
• b" F!i
.STEEL &M EXISTS
ALDtgtl THE
WfjT- f /48 THE SOUTH
EDCrE
O F PROJECT I t L A
12 ' UTI L IT'l
FMgrr)L&17'
RECEIVED
0 C T 3 1 2002
CURRENT PLANNING
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
P-11 « _ Site: Q ,rti,:, — Dre*e Report Signature: Dates — — ""`" /0- 2J-ot
Citv of Fort Collins
InPROJECT
COMMENT S HEEET E, ,, E p
City of Fort Collins
AUG 1 6 2002
Current Planning CURRENT PLANNING
DATE: July 31, 2002 TO: AT&T r�,�J9atG�
PROJECT: #33-01G Fossil Lake PDP — 4th Filing — Type II (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the staff
review meeting:
August 28, 2002
Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference
AT&T Broadband would like to request that the Utility easement along Ziegler Rd be changed to a 13 foot
Utility easement.
Also AT & T Broadband will not be making plans to service this project until a Broadband Utility
Easement, also called a service agreement, is completed with our Commercial Accounts Executive, Reneta
Santro, who can be reached at 970-419-3106. The sooner this can be completed the lower the cost.
Name (please print)
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Tat 3Site _Drainage Report _Other
_Utility _Redline Utility Landscape
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: October 8, 2002 TO: Technical Services
PROJECT: #33-01G Fossil Lake PDP — 41h Filing - Type I
(LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones no later than the
staff review meeting:
October 30, 2002 ScJ
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
%ca�1Dq-2Y k l,F-"i, CLOSE
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
pig _Site te" e�i'r, _ �Be Report Other
Signature:_
Dai�eluli�
Citv of Fort Collins
the high school. This option will also satisfy the pedestrian LOS for the development to the
future community park located at the NE corner of the Kechter and Ziegler intersection.
[8/28/02] The TIS shows the pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) to the 2004 High School as
acceptable for continuity, however, it is unclear how the extent of the project's improvements
to the surrounding street system achieves this LOS? Will there be a contiuous sidewalk
along the east side of Ziegler Road to the high school?
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Terry Ferril
Topic: General
77
[10/11/02] General note #5 needs to be corrected to indicate that all sanitary sewer and
water line construction shall conform to the most current South Fort Collins Sanitation
District and Fort Collins Loveland Water District specifications respectively.
78
[10/11/021 The connection to manhole #1 is core drilled.
79
[10/11/02] The existing water main size is to be indicated at the proposed connection.
80
[10/11/02] A fire hydrant is to be shown on the dead end water line at the north end of
Dripping Rock Lane.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
4
REPEAT COMMENT: Handicap parking spaces shouldn't be located where it is necessary
to cross vehicle traffic lanes (Section 3.2.2(K)(5). Such spaces on Lots 1 and 6, Block 2
need to be relocated. IN THEIR 10-8-02 RESPONSE LETTER, THE APPLICANT HAS
ASKED THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO ALLOW THE SPACES TO REMAIN
ACROSS A VEHICLE TRAFFIC LANE. 3.2.2(K)(5)(b) DOES STATE THAT "WHEN
PRACTICLE" THE SPACE SHALL NOT CROSS LANES OF TRAFFIC. SO THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW THEM WHERE THEY ARE SHOWN IF PLANNING DECIDES
THAT IT IS OK. IF THE SPACES ARE ALLOWED TO REMAIN, THEN THE CODE
SECTION REQUIES A MARKED CROSSWALK BE PROVIDED.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
ple se feel free t call meat (970) 221-6750.
Yours TruJv. �I
City PI
Page 6
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Janet McTague
Topic: General
9
[8/23/02] Utility coodination meeting would be required. Need to know location of electric
and gas meters on the building prior to coordination meeting
Department: PFA
Topic: General
Previous PFA comments still stand.
Issue Contact: Michael Chavez
Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Topic: General
11
[8/27/02] Lighting plan lacks photometrics and luminaire schedule.
87
[11/5/02] Need photometric plan to complete review.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
83
Please provide an updated Landscape Plan to review for conflicts with stormsewer.
85
Please tie in proposed contours to existing on the eastern edge of the property. See
grading plan.
86
See redlined WQ outlet structure comments on the detail sheet and please revise.
Topic: Erosion Control
84
1. The plan indicates straw bales on a concrete pan in the detention pond. This will not
work, please choose a different BMP at this location.
2. Please rework the PS, EFF calculations, you haven't included all the BMP's you're using.
Your plan, as drawn, should easily fall within the limits of the calculation parameters.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Transportation
19
[10-30-02] Further information provided by the applicant discusses the pedestrian LOS
concerns from Rnd. #1. The route identified for pedestrians / students via Trilby Road to
Franz Drive in order to access the 2004 high school may satisfy pedestrian LOS for
continuity, however, it does not satisfy the LOS criteria for directness. As measured
according to the LOS Manual the directness A/M ratio exceeds the permitted 1.4 ratio. One
option to satisfy this criteria is to construct a permanent sidewalk or temporary sidewalk
along the eastern side of Ziegler Road to the Kechter intersection that connects this
proposed development to the 2004 high school via future street improvements planned with
Page 5
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff
Topic: General
25
The major walkway spine doesn't seem to quite meet the requirements. Per the code
definition it needs to be within a 35 foot min width area, tree lined, landscaped on both sides
and all parts of the walkway need to be visible from the street.
26
Will need a letter of intent for the off -site easements before this item can be scheduled for a
hearing.
88
[10/30/02] Identify the type of sleeve to be used to sleeve the irrigation line.
89
[10/30/02] Need to show the irrigation line in the profiles. Where does it cross in relation to
the sewer line? It needs to have a minimum 2 feet of cover below scarified subgrade to the
top of the sleeve.
90
[10/30/02] A minimum of 2 feet of cover above a pipe to the scarified subgrade needs to be
provided. Do not appear to be meeting this for Storm 2.
91
[10/30/02] Need to show how the end of the street construction ties to existing grade.
92
[10/30/02] Not meeting the maximum centerline slope at the intersection.
Topic: Plat
51
Show the off -site easements that will be needed.
Topic: Utility Plans
31
No more than 500 sq feet of drainage can sheet flow across the sidewalk from a driveway.
All 4 driveways have areas greater than 500 sq ft flowing across the sidewalk, plus these will
not be high volume driveways so there will not be curb and gutter on the driveway within the
row. Need to show the curb going to 0" in the parking areas prior to hitting the row. This
curb may also need to be outflow gutter. Inflow would direct concentrated flow onto the
sidewalk. The variance request submitted for this is under review 10/30/02
Department: Forestry Issue Contact: Tim Buchanan
Topic: General
75
[10/29/02] These two street trees have been used but are not on the street tree list:
Autumn Purple Ash & Emerald Queen Maple. The applicant needs to change the two
species to an approved street tree.
Page 4
"tree -lined." Tree spacing every 30 to 40 feet on both sides would qualify a walkway as
"tree -lined."
[9/4/02] Make sure the landscape plan is updated to reflect that major walkway spines need
to be a " tree -lined connecting walkway ...... with landscaping along both sides." Keep in
mind that a major walkway spine can not abut a parking lot without having a landscaped
area between the walkway and the curb of the parking lot.
70
[11/7/02] Repeat Comment. As soon as the lighting plan is submitted, I'll comment on it.
Joe Gerdom from the Police Department will also comment. Submit 3 copies when it's
ready. Make sure it satisfies the standards in 3.2.4 of the LUC.
[9/5/02] Lighting Plan needs to include specifications of the poles, pole fixtures, and wall
mounted fixtures. Section 3.2.4(D)(3) of the LUC requires that fixtures be fully shielded and
shall feature sharp cut-off capability so as to minimuze up -light, spill -light, glare and
unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property. The specs are necessary to determine
compliance with this standard.
71
[11/7/02] Repeat Comment.
[9/5/02] The lighting plan shall include a photometric assessment of the site in order to
determine lighting levels. Minimum lighting levels are regulated by section 3.2.4(C) and
maximum lighting levels are regulated by 3.2.4(D)(7)&(8). General lighting design standards
are in 3.2.4(D)(1)through(9).
93
[11/7/02] The Building F on Block 1 (the building reduced from a 6-plex to a 4-plex) needs
to have a connecting walkway that connects to a street sidewalk. The temporary turn
around may make this a challenge to accomplish. There will need to be some sort of street
sidewalk incorporated on the west side of the temporary turn around to. accomplish this.
94
[11/7/021 As a follow up to the neighborhood meeting, a street connection out to Ziegler
Road would be permitted. The in the technical criteria for street standards Table 7-3 from
the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, intersections along minor arterials are
permitted to be spaced no closer together than 460 feet apart, and the Land Use Code
section 3.6.3(D) requires that they be spaced no further apart than every 660 feet. This is a
recent change to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. What this means, is
that if you so choose to, you can reconfigure the layout to provide a public street connection
to Ziegler in the vicinity of your northern property line. The existing utility boxes in the
northwest corner of the site would likely have to be moved to accomplish this, and if so, it
would be at developer expense. A future street connection would still be required to
connect to the property to the north. This may be an alternative to having to provide a turn
around. As I stated in the meeting last night, the street layout as proposed also satisfies the
standards, but as a point of clarification, you could also propose a street connection to
Ziegler and still satisfy the standards.
Page 3
thirty-five (35) feet in its smallest dimension, and not all parts of such outdoor space are
directly visible from a public street. There must be at least 35 feet between the north lot line
and the enclosed patio wall/fences. The entire open area norht of building E must be visible
from the street sidewalk. The sidewalk on Dripping Rock needs to be installed in order for
the major walkway spine to connect to it. Keep this in mind as you revise the design for the
temporary turn -around.
[9/4/02] "Major walkway spines" are required in order for buildings E & F to satisfy section
3.5.2(C) of the Land Use Code. See redlines.
3.5.2(C) states:
(C) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
(1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a
dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front
facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no
primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk. The following
exceptions to this standard are permitted:
(a) Up to two (2) single-family detached dwellings on an individual lot that has frontage on
either a public or private street.
(b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet from a street sidewalk if the
primary entrance faces and opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a
major walkway spine.
(c) If a multifamily building has more than one (1) front facade, and if one (1) of the front
facades faces and opens directly onto a street sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the
other front facade(s) need not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway.
58
[11/7/02] Continue to refer to these definitions as you revise the drawings. They are strictly
enforced.
[9/4/02] It is important to understand the definition of "connecting walkway" and "major
walkway spine" when applying 3.5.2(C). Article 5 of the land use code offers the following
definition for these two terms:
Connecting walkway shall mean (1) any street sidewalk, or (2) any walkway that directly
connects a main entrance of a building to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to
walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or around parking lot outlines which
are not aligned to a logical route.
Major walkway spine shall mean a tree -lined connecting walkway that is at least five (5) feet
wide, with landscaping along both sides, located in an outdoor space that is at least thirty-five
(35) feet in its smallest dimension, with all parts of such outdoor space directly visible from a
public street.
61
[11/7/02] If the walkways connecting buildings E & F to the street sidewalks are to qualify as
a major walkway spines, they need more trees next to the walk for them to be considered
Page 2
6a STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
ALLER LINGLE ARCHITECTS P.C. Date: 11/07/2002
BRAD MASSEY
712 WHALERS WAY, #13-100
FT. COLLINS, CO 80525
Staff has reviewed your submittal for FOSSIL LAKE PDP - 4TH FILING - TYPE I (LUC), and
we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Post Office Issue Contact: Mike Spurgin
Topic: General
76
[10/29/02] Post Office - No Comments.
Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
Topic: General f'
10
[8/27/02] The site Ian neg�ds to continue and connect to the walkway from ledgestone
court. Think of it a an extension of the public street. It should be a simple, easily
' accessible public co nection in the sidewalk system, the same as if the subject property was
being developed as, cul-de-sac with a similar connection.
Related comme s on a site plan call for aligning the overall system for more continuity.
(See enclose site plan).
81
Tree Planting along walkway of C,D, E and F.
82
Variation in building color?
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Topic: General
55
[11/7/02] Repeat Comment. Based on the input from the neighbors, neighborhood
compatibility is a huge concern for them. In my interpretation, the entry elements that face
the streets need to be enhanced in order to satisfy this standard. Because of the enclosed
privacy patio areas that are also along the street facing facade, the entries need to be a
major architectural feature that is emphasized.
[9/4/02] Section 3.5.1(C) of the LUC states, Buildings shall either be similar in size and
height, or if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the
mass and scale of other structures on the same block, or if no buildings exist thereon, then
on adjoining blocks." Primary entry elements facing streets should be enhanced as part of
this necessary articulation. See redlines.
57
[11/7/02] The walkway connecting building E of Block 2 to the street sidewalk does not
qualify as a "major walkway spine." It is not located in an outdoor space that is at least
Page 1