Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM, 7TH FILING, THE WILLOWS - PDP - 56-98N - CORRESPONDENCE -Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel fre to call me at (970) 221-6750. urs Truly, ( 1 r•. T.�ty.Y NES CiPla er 18 of 18 52 Issue Contact. Jeff Hill It still appears that the layout and density of this development makes it impossible to serve all units with water/sewer services and provide adequate room to maintain our system in the future. Zoning 5 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Need landscape note to the affect that: All landscaping must be installed prior to a CO, or secured with a bond, letter of credit, or escrow in the amount of 125% of the valuation of labor and material. 6 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Remove landscape maintenance note #6. Code requires maintenance and replacement anyway, and a 6 month time frame is way too long. We generally would require 30 days (or longer, depending on the time of year. 7 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Entry signs don't comply with code. Only 1 per entrance is allowed. Since the sign code regulates signs anyway, they should remove all reference to signs. g Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Remove single family building footprints from site plan, or at least add note that they are for illustrative purposes only. Otherwise, any deviation from the footprint will not be allowed at building permit time. g Issue Contact., Peter Barnes Remove building square footages from site plans. Showing them on the individual lots means that if the home is not exactly what's shown on the recorded plan, the permit can't be issued. 10 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Remove building envelope lines. Section 3.5.2(D) stipulates the required setbacks or building locations. Envelope lines mean nothing, and just add confusion. The narrative states that they're requesting a setback modification. They need to clearly state on the site plan what the setbacks are going to be. 11 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Show lot #'s on site plan. 12 Issue Contact., Peter Barnes I'm assuming "motor courts" are the multi -family buildings. They need to use legal terminology, therefore they must label them as multi -family. 17 of 18 Water Wastewater 35 37 39 40 41 42 44 46 49 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Show all water/sewer lines on the landscape plans and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Include the standard general notes pertaining to landscape/utility separation distances and locates of utilities on the landscape plan. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill It is important to coordinate the civil plans with the architectural plans for the placement of the fire lines. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Will an irrigation tap be needed for this development? If so, show and label on utility plans. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Where fire lines are opposite of one another use a cross on the water main rather than 2 tees. Issue Contact., Jeff Hill Clearly show and label locations of all curb stops and meter pit location on the utility plans. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Maintain a 10 foot separation distance between thrust blocks and all other underground utilities. Issue Contact. Jeff Hill Provide sanitary sewer service stationing on the sanitary sewer profile sheets. Stationing is measured from the downstream manhole to the point of service connection on the sanitary sewer main. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Where water mains and fire lines have greater than 5.5 feet of cover, then a lowering must be designed. Provide details for each lowering. 16 of 18 47 M. 50 51 53 54 55 REP 57 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Recommend extending the porch for the homes facing Kansas Dr., Willow Dr., and Parkside Dr. Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Recommend 24-foot driveway cuts rather than 28-foot drive cuts on Kansas Dr., Willow Dr., and Parkside Dr. Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Locate an access ramps for pedestrians heading south on Kansas Dr. across Parkside Dr. and connecting to the regional trail (LUC 3.2.2 C,2). Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Construct and label the trail crossing on Parkside Dr. as enhanced or raised (LCUASS 16.6.1). Again raised cross walks are preferred to stay consistant within subdivision,. Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Strongly recommend using a more defined, sharper curve for neck downs / bulb outs at mid block crossings. This will potentially allow for additional on -street parking. Issue Contact. Tom Reiff Construct access ramps and a striped crosswalk on the north side of the intersection of Parkside Dr. and Rigden Pkwy. If not already constructed. Issue Contact. Tom Reiff Sidewalk along the west side of Rigden Pkwy needs to be constructed to previously approved widths. Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Include amenities such as benches, drinking fountains, etc... along the regional trail for residents, and trail users. With the large landscaped buffer between the road and trail the area begins to -resemble a boardwalk. Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Realign sidewalks for Blg -11 and Blg-12 (see red lines) (K. Reavis) 15 of 18 58 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Offsite flows included in this submittal that were referenced from Rigden, First Filing don't seem to be consistent. Also, some incorrect flow calculations were found in Rigden, Filing 1 that pertain to this site. Please revise offsite flows that flow through this site and adjust design on any relevant conveyance elements. Transportation Planning 31 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Directional access ramps are required at intersections with detached walks (LCUASS 16.3.1 A,5) 32 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Connect sidewalk at 90 degree angle with driveway along Willow Drive, north of tree. 33 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Construct a raised or enhanced crosswalk where neighborhood trail crosses Custer Drive (LCUASS 16.6.1), raised crosswalk is recommended to stay consistant with the subdivision. 34 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Neighborhood trail should be aligned with the access ramps that cross Custer Drive. 36 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Site plan needs to show how the Kansas Drive and Custer Drive align. 38 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Construct a temporary asphalt sidewalk along the temporary Kansas Dr. (LUC 3.2.2 C,7) 43 Issue Contact., Tom Reiff Construct access ramps where sidewalks align to cross Kansas Dr. (see red lines) (LUC 3.2.2 C,2) 45 Issue Contact. Tom Reiff Stub street sidewalks to the edge of the property line to allow for future connections. 14 of 18 59 Police 27 Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales FIRE LANE TURNAROUND If a fire lane is provided, it shall not exceed 150 feet in length without a turnaround being provided. The turnaround shall have a minimum inside turning radius of 20 feet and an outside radius of 40 feet. The fire lane shall meet all other design criteria provided by the Poudre Fire Authority. Issue Contact., Joseph Gerdom Difficult to assess safety and security - need details on lighting and landscaping. Stormwater Utility 24 25 26 28 29 30 Issue Contact., Wes Lamarque Please use Benchmark 13-93 which is closer to the site. Issue Contact. Wes Lamarque Please add more corner lot, high point, and low point spot elevations on grading plan. Issue Contact. Wes Lamarque Please show detention pond summary table on drainage plan. Issue Contact. Wes Lamarque Please add swale cross -sections for all swales with calculations in the report on drainage plan. Also delineate swale locations on plans. Issue Contact., Wes Lamarque The buildings and window wells encroaching onto the existing storm sewer drainage easements is not allowed per City of Fort Collins Criteria. The overflow swales also carry flow up against the window wells, which could flood the basements in a 100-year event. Please call at convenience to schedule a meeting to discuss this issue further. Issue Contact. Wes Lamarque Overflow swales: The sidewalks located in the overflow swales appear to have not been accounted for in the swale design. The sidewalks would have a sideslope greater than allowed. If the sidewalks are leveled, the swales will lose considerable capacity. Please provide swales with capacity of 1.33Q including the sidewalk grading. 13 of 18 PFA 15 16 17 18 Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales ADDRESSING All building addresses shall be visible from the street fronting the property. U FC901.4.4 Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. FCLUC3.5.2(C)1 "Extent reasonably feasible" is defined as in Article 5 of the Land Use Code as follows: "shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonble steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with this regulation." NOTE: Because of the forementioned requirements, the two detached buildings in the far southwest corner labelled as "SF-62" and "BG-12" shall not be approved due to them having no street frontage from which an address would originate. Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales WATER SUPPLY Hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. No building can be greater than 300 feet from any hydrant. Each hydrant shall be capable of delivering 1500 gpm at 20 psi. UFC901.2.2.2 Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales KNOX BOX A Knox Box (key box) is required to be mounted on every building equipped with required fire protection (see sprinkler requirement). UFC902.4; PFA Policy 88-20. Issue Contact. Ron Gonzales FIRE SPRINKLERS The following buildings are required to be fire sprinklered because they are out of acces: BG-1 through BG-8 BG-10 and BG-11 BG-16, BG-17 and BG-18 12 of 18 C! Issue Contact: Monica Moore Need to show on utility plan where the electric meter locations are to be installed on the multifamily units. Many of the buildings do not seem to have enough clearance necessary for all meters. Natural Resources 19 20 21 22 23 Issue Contact: Doug Moore An Ecological Characterization Study is required - An Ecological Characterization Study is required of the project. 3.4.1(D) (1)(a-k) Fort Collins Land Use Code We recommend that the applicant read the section of the Land Use Code listed above or call for clarification on the study. Contact Doug Moore at 224-6143 for assistance. Issue Contact: Doug Moore Environmental Assessment - The study that was submitted in the place of the Ecological Characterization Study, was more of an Environment Assessment and has been given to the City's Natural Resources Planner and Compliance Specialist for review. Issue Contact. Doug Moore Site Issue- 50' Landscape Buffer should be 50' Natural Habitats & Features Buffer. Issue Contact. Doug Moore Landscape Plan Issue - Seed Mix and Mixer Ratios needs to be called out on the Landscape Plan for review. All plantings used within buffer areas must be plant species native to Fort Collins. (see attached guide) Issue Contact. Doug Moore Limits of Development (LOD) 3.4.1(N)(1-5)- • Limits of Development (LOD) line shall be estabilshed as the boundary of the project outside of which no land disturbance will occur. The purpose of this is to protect the natural habitats and features and their associated buffer zones from inadvertent damage. 11 of 18 105 106 107 108 109 110 Issue Contact. Marc Virata Ensure that line weights and types differ between lot lines, edge of pavement, utilities, etc. Issue Contact. Marc Virata My measuring appears to show the stationing on the plan view not measuring out to 100' between STA's in all cases, some fall short, some are longer. Issue Contact: Marc Virata Correct stationing labeling, street names, etc. on the utility plan. Issue Contact: Marc Virata Can the driveways out to the public street be shaped to appear to intersect the street closer to a 90 degree angle? Some appear to be less than 80 degrees, which would require a variance request. Issue Contact: Marc Virata The access road along the west that heads out to Custer needs to be clarified on roadway width, plans show both a 20' and 30' wide access road. In addition, since the proposed onsite roadway for Kansas Drive does not tie into existing grades at the end of the property, are slope easement needed at the property line and along the access road? Issue Contact., Marc Virata Additional comments may be made with the resubmittal and detail in conformance with LCUASS - see plans for additional information. Light & Power 61 3 Issue Contact., Monica Moore Landscape Plan does not conform to the minimum clearances required between shade trees and streetlights. Shade Trees MUST maintain at least 40 feet of clearance from streetlights. There are at least 12 streetlights on the landscape plan that have conflicts with street trees. Issue Contact. Monica Moore Single family units will require a utility easement between lots in order to provide a location for electric services. Issue Contact: Monica Moore Lot 34 does not seem to have adequate clearance for all utilities. Need to determine where electric service can go and still maintain 10 foot minimum clearance to water service. 10 of 18 94 Issue Contact: Marc Virata A trench drain appears to be missing on Sheet 7. 95 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Directional ramps at intersections are required on all new construction in accordance to LCUASS, please revise the drawings to use directional ramps. 96 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The street comer radii for Parkfront out to Custer and Parkside out to Rigden are required to be a maximum of 20' per LCUASS (8.2.9). 97 Issue Contact: Marc Virata 1. The plan and profile sheets need additional information in conformance with LCUASS: -centerline profiles -storm drainage flow arrows -label of where transition point takes place to remove the crown from the street at an intersection -label cross pan widths Issue Contact: Marc Virata Continue offsite design of Kansas north of this site (500 feet required per LCUASS.) 99 - - _. .. Jssgeq.Contact: Marc-Virata Please show the access ramps scaled out on the utilityplans.. 100 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Do all trench drains have enough capacity? 101 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Add "or approved equivalent" to all notes specifying Neenah trench drain 102 Issue Contact. Marc Virata A variance request is required for the instances where the minimum off street parking setback distance is not being met per the requirements in 19-03 in LCUASS. 103 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Provide details for driveway approach, eyebrow, and neckdowns in conformance with LCUASS on the detail sheets. Ensure all details shown on detail sheets conform with or exceed LCUASS. 104 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Provide a note referencing all the patching that "Limits of street repair are approximate, final limits to be determined by the City Engineering Inspector at the time the street cuts are made." 9 of 18 87 :• 91 93 Issue Contact. Marc Virata (Note for the file) While it appears that the attached units are not in conformance with Section 3.6.2(L)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code, this is allowed based upon Bob Blanchard's interpretation that the application of private drives to single family attached shall be the same as multi -family. Issue Contact: Marc Virata The units on the southwest corner of the site have issues. Per LUC 3.6.2(L)(2) Private drive requirements, the maximum dead-end length of a private drive is 150', a modification is needed to allow this. Issue Contact., Marc Virata Correct private drive maintenance note (Natural Resources will not maintain.) Issue Contact: Marc Virata PFA had stated in past conceptual reviews that the common driveway courtyards between multifamily units needed to be emergency access easements. I believe this is still the case. Issue Contact. Marc Virata The sight distance easement along Custer Drive appears to be OK (if not perhaps larger than needed based upon LCUASS Standard Drawing 7-16.) However, the sight distance easement at the intersection of Kansas Drive and Parkside Drive appears to be too small. Because this is not considered a stop condition at this intersection, the standards in LCUASS do not have this criteria. The City has been applying the criteria in Section 3.8 (G)(1) of the Land Use Code to determine sight distance. Issue Contact: Marc Virata In general, the utility plan submittal is of good quality, however, as the submittal falls under the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) there are items that need to be addressed to meet this new criteria. Please ensure that all the requirements in LCUASS are complied with in future submittals. With the next submittal, there may be additional comments made with regards to meeting the requirements under the new standard. Issue Contact. Marc Virata Please refer to Appendix E-4 in the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards for the checklist requirements. This is required to be completed and submitted with all projects under the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards and will help ensure that submittal requirements are being met. Issue Contact: Marc Virata Replace General Notes on Utility Plan set with General Notes per LCUASS. Issue Contact. Marc Virata Ensure two benchmarks are used for the General Notes. 8 of 18 112 Issue Contact., Troy Jones Sideyard Setbacks - Modification Conditions . The planning and zoning board approved the reduction in side yard setbacks on 6/21/01 with the condition that access/use easements be granted for the side yards. Please provide the documentation that explains and depicts how this side yard access/use easement will work. Engineering 13 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Add Light and Power to the City of Fort Collins Utility Plan Approval Block. 14 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Another utility coordination meeting is strongly encouraged. 78 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Letters of intent for all offsite easements are required before a hearing. 79 Issue Contact. Marc Virata Alternative compliance to Section 3.6 of the Land Use Code is required for no street connections to the south. 80 . Issue Contact: Marc Virata A groundwater analysis report because of the high groundwater shown on the soils report in conformance of Chapter 5 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. 81 Issue Contact.- Marc Virata Street names are not the same between the site and utility plan sheets. Please ensure they correspond. 82 Issue Contact: Marc Virata The sidewalk along the west side of Parkfront Drive that meanders round the tree needs to be in a public access easement. 83 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Are the street names considered okay by the City and LEITA? 7 of 18 75 `I 77 85 111 Issue Contact. Troy Jones Design Standards for 7 and 8 plex Buildings As shown on the plat submitted, each of the motor -court buildings is on a single lot. Under this scenario, the buildings are considered "multifamily" buildings. As your letter that was included in the submittal indicates, you intend to revise the plat so that each unit in these motor -court buildings has it's own lot. Under this scenario, the units would be considered single family attached. As shown, some of the motor -court buildings have more than 6 units. If you ultimately end up with any "multifamily" buildings with more than 6 units, there are additional design standards for the design of such buildings [LUC 4.4(E)(4)]. These design standards will only apply to this project if there are 7 or 8 plex "multifamily" buildings as part of the proposed design. Issue Contact. Troy Jones Modifications Put a general note on the Site Plan explaining that modifications were granted to the LUC. Include the date of the P&Z hearing, the section of the code that was modified, a brief explination of what -the modification gives permission for you to do, and any conditions associated with the approval. Issue Contact. Troy Jones Street Names The plat and the site plan have street names that do not match. Issue Contact. Troy Jones Bulbouts Given the limited amount of available on -street parking, the street neckdowns where the midblock crosswalks cross Parkside Drive should be modified to maximize the amount of parallel parking the street that will physically be able to handle. Please see the redlined site plan from Current Planning with regard to this issue. The modified neck down will require an engineering variance, but we feel it makes sence from a site planning standpoint. Issue Contact. Troy Jones Gross and Net Acres The site plan needs to specify the property size in both gross and net acres. Refer to section 3.8.18 of the LUC to determine what land is gross and what land is net. We define gross acreage different than what you may be used to, so read this section of the code carefully. It is possible that the gross and net acreage may be the same, depending on the features. Street right-of-way's that have already been dedicated with the Rigden Farm First Filing (Custer Drive and Rigden Parkway) are subtracted from the total acreage for calculating the gross residential acreage. Qualifying 'outdoor spaces" and land dedicated to the pedestrian /bicycle path connections can be subtracted from the gross residential acreage to determine the net residential acreage. 6of18 72 73 74 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Dead-end Drive Length The private drive in the southwest corner is longer than 150 feet in length. Section 3.6.2(L)(2)(c) of the LUC limits the dead-end drive length to no more than 150 feet. There is an exception to this standard for private drives that provide additional access to properties that have street frontage [as referenced in section 3.6.2(L)(1)(b)] but this exception does not apply to the drive in the southwest corner of this site because the buildings served by the private drive in question do not have street frontage. Issue Contact. Troy Jones Emergency Service Access Poudre Fire Authority has indicated that the two buildings west of the stormwater easement in the southwest corner of the site are problematic from an accessibility standpoint. Section 3.6.6(B) of the LUC requires that all developments "shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and for those persons rendering fire protection and emergency services." Having detached buildings that are more than 150 feet down a dead-end private drive with no street frontage does not constitue "adequate access." The site plan should be revised so that all buildings have "adequate access." This can be accomplished with the elimination of these two said detached buildings. Issue Contact: Troy Jones Density The approved Rigden Farm Oveall Development Plan specifies this site to have at least 136 units but no more than 205 units. The proposed PDP includes 164 units. It is important to clarify that the city is -not requiring that this site develop with 164 units, but rather that the developers are choosing to have that many units. The minimum approved density from the ODP could still be satisfied if you reduced the unit count by as many as 28 units. I bring up this point because it seems that this site design is trying to squeeze too much program into too small of a space. The motor -court building configuration is good solution to many of the site planning requirements, however, it seems that this configuration would work much better with a slightly lower density. We HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you consider backing off on the density given the motor - court building configuration design. Our primary concerns are that overflow and guest parking will be a HUGE problem with the current design. Not only are we concerned that there will be many complaints to the city by future residents expressing that we should not have allowed such a parking problem to be approved, but it seems that you, as developers, are taking quite a risk assuming that the lack of guest and overflow parking won't reduce the marketability of the units. WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS FOR THE PROJECT AND PROVIDE SOME OFF- STREET OVERFLOW AND GUEST PARKING AREAS. 5 of 18 70 71 Issue Contact. Troy Jones Lighting in the Motor Courts Please clarify how the interior of the motor courts will be lit. We want to ensure that they will be lit enough to discourage safety hazards. Any lighting must comply with the site lighting design standards in section 3.2.4(D) of the LUC. Once the lighting is clarified, we will have the information needed to comment more specifically on this issue. Issue Contact. Troy Jones Overflow Parking The motor -court buildings are all concentrated in a configuration that will cause a HUGE overflow parking problem. You are not proposing any off- street overflow parking areas. The reality of the situation is that unless prohibited, it will be common for one or both stalls of the two -car garages to be used for resident storage. Add a note to the site plan that states that the use of the garages for each of the units will be restricted to so that the garages must be used for parking and not for any kind of storage that takes away the ability to park in both of the garages spots. The motor courts don't allow for any driveway parking because there is simply no space for it within the motor courts, so there's no solution there. The limited amount of on - street parking that is available adjacent to the motor court buildings will not provide enough spaces to address the overflow parking caused by garage storage and residents with more than two cars, much less address the guest parking problem. Clarify how you intend to solve this overflow parking issue. Issue Contact., Troy Jones Solar -Oriented Lot Requirement Section 3.2.3(8) of the LUC requires that at least 65 % of the lots less than 15,000 square feet in area in single family residential developments must conform to the definition of a "solar -oriented lot." Based on the letter included in the submittal explaining that lots 44 through 64 on the plat will actually be changed to depict individual unit parcels, all residential lots for this project will be considered in the calculation of compliance with the solar -oriented lot standard. Because the plat is not accurately depicting the ultimate lot configuration of the areas west of Willow Drive, it is not possible to determine if the proposed plan satisfies this standard. If less than 65% of the lots satisfy the definition, you will need to either change the site plan to comply, or request an alternative compliance to this standard specifically addressing the review criteria in section 3.2.3(E)(2) of the LUC. 4of18 li 67 Issue Contact: Troy Jones Guest Parking Off-street guest Parking is not provided. Given that the number of units with the motor court configuration, and given that all the guest parking for all the motor court units is intended to be served by on -street parking, staff finds that the proposed design does not satisfy section 3.2.2(D)(3)(c) of the LUC where it requires that off-street guest parking spaces be distributed proportionately to the units they are intended to serve. The fundamental problem seems to be that there is just too many units in a tight configuration. We think the way to solve this is to reduce the density of the project, particurlary in the motor court unit area. It is staff's opinion that that the reality will be that this site plan provides only very few and very limited guest parking possibilities distributed anywhere near the motor court units. A possible solution to this problem would be to eliminate the13 units in the southwest corner of the project and replace them with a guest and overflow parking lot. Please clarify how you intend the distribution of guest parking to be addressed. Issue Contact: Troy Jones Parking Lot Design If you do integrate a parking lot into the design, make sure to design it in accordance with 3.2.1(E)(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping, 3.2.1(E)(5) Parking Lot Interior Landscaping, 3.2.2(E) Parking Lot Layout, and 3.2.2(M) Landscaping. If a parking lot were to be located next to the trail along the southern portion of the site, adequate screening will be required between the lot and the trail. Issue Contact. Troy Jones Required Street Crossing During the review of the property south of this site (Rigden Farm Filing 6 currently under review), across the Foothills Drainageway, we made a comment to that developer (Wheeler Commercial & Jim Sell Design) that a street connection is required between your property and their property crossing the channel in accordance with section 3.6.3(F) of the LUC. In our discussions with the other developer, they have indicated to City Staff that they intend to address the issue through recommending an alternative compliance to this section of the LUC. To date, I have not received an alternative compliance request from that developer that satisfies the review criteria specified in 3.6.3(H)(2) of the LUC. I have verbally discussed the issue with the other developer, and it looks like they have found an argument that can be supported by staff in eliminating this crossing. Your application must also request an alternative compliance to this requirement or provide the street connection. You may want to coordinate with Vaughn Furness of Jim Sell Design at (970)484-1921 on this issue. He is the person who is in the process of draftinq this request for the other site. 3of18 63 Issue Contact: Troy Jones The Buildings in Plan The 6 and 7 unit buildings on the site and landscape plans are very hard to read. Please remove, lighten the lines, or replace with dashed lines the interior separation lines between units. The interior walls are not typically shown on site and landscape plans. The landscape plan doesn't show lines where garage doors are, thereby making the 6 and 7 unit buildings very hard to read. Item 3.r. on the Submittal Requirements sheet requires that the location and floor area as well as the proposed building envelopes be shown on the site plan. To this end, please ensure that building exterior walls are shown with darker lines than any interior lines. Also ensure that garage doors are shown, as they are part of the exterior walls. Also ensure that the total building square footage, the ground floor building square footage, and the building envelopes are shown on the site plan. Issue Contact: Troy Jones Signature Blocks The site plan must have the "planning approval" and the "owner's certification" signature blocks on it. The attorney's signature block on the plat needs to be changed because we use different wording for projects that were granted modifications to the LUC. Please see the attached signature block examples. Issue Contact: Troy Jones Parking In the chart on the site plan, in the area labeled "Parking," please clarify the total number of 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom, and 4 bedroom units. The chart that addresses the various unit types is rather confusing. Unit C5 doesn't say how many bedrooms that unit type has. It seems that this chart is more detailed than we need to know from a development review standpoint. The main thing we need to know is the number of units with each number of bedrooms to determine if you satisfy the required parking. Keep in mind that two bedroom units require 1.75 parking spaces, three bedroom units require 2.0 spaces per unit, and four bedroom units require 2.5 spaces per unit [LUC 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)]. It is not practical to expect that the four bedroom units will share garage spaces with the 2 bedroom units. Because the parking for each unit is inside an enclosed garage that only that unit can access, the 4 bedroom units are under parked. It looks to me that you have 3 four bedroom units proposed. You will need at least two additional off-street parking spaces to serve these three units. 2 of 18 ia STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citvof FoR Colons Slavt Construction Date: 07/26/2001 Ralph Colasanti 215 Union Blvd Lakewood, CO 80228 Staff has reviewed your submittal for RIGDEN FARM, 7TH FILING, THE WILLOWS - #56- 98N, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Current Planning 60 Issue Contact., Troy Jones Street Names The name "Willow Drive" cannot be used. There is already a "Willow Street" in Fort Collins. A list of proposed street names for the P.D.P. is now part of the submittal requirements. We check each name with the Latimer County street name data base to avoid name duplications and names that are very similar to other existing street names. 61 Issue Contact., Troy Jones Street Trees In accordance with section 3.2. 1 (D)(2)(a) of the LUC, "wherever the sidewalk is separated from the street by a parkway, canopy shade trees shall be planted at thirty-foot to forty -foot spacing (averaged along the entire front and sides of the block face) in the center of all such parkway areas." The block bounded by Willow, Custer, Rigden, and Parkside is approximately 1880 feet in circumference. The above code section [3.2. 1 (D)(2)(a)lwould require 47 trees in the parkway areas around the circumference of this block. The proposed landscape plan only shows 42 trees. The southern side of Parkside Drive is roughly 1050 feet in length, which would require 29 trees. The landscape plan only shows 17 street trees along this section. The front and sides of the block along the western side of Willow Drive is roughly 780 feet in length, which would require 20 street trees. The landscape plan only shows 19 street trees along this section. The front and side of the block along the eastern side of Kansas is roughly 710 feet in length, which would require 18 trees. The landscape plan show 18 trees, so this section meets the code.The front of the block on the west side of Kansas is roughly 545 feet in length, which would require 14 trees. The landscape plan shows 13 trees in this section. Any less than the required number of street trees around for any section of street would require an alternative compliance request in accordance with 3.2.1(N) of the LUC. If you choose to request an alternative compliance request make sure that your argument specifically addresses each and every one of the review criteria for alternative compliance requests in 3.2.1(N)(2). 62 Issue Contact. Troy Jones Species Diversity Section 3.2.l(D)(3) limits the number of trees on the project to no more than 15% of a single species. The landscape plan does not specify the quantities of each species of tree. The submittal requirements list for Project Development Plans requires that the "extent and location of all plant materials and landscape features" be shown in the landscape table. You must revise the landscape plans to label each species of trees, shrubs, and grasses on the plans (pages L-1 through L-3) and put the quantities of each species in the landscape table on page L-4. 1 of 18