HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM, 7TH FILING, THE WILLOWS - PDP - 56-98N - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (5)— 19 — September 26, 2001
LANDSCAPE
I want to acknowledge the double row of trees along the sidewalk on Custer as a very pleasing
contribution.
The west perimeter of the project needs to comply fully with the tree stocking and other functional
landscape requirements in 3.2.1. This also applies to the walkway area between BG-11 and BG-12.
These big buildings lined up against the neighboring property need significant tree plantings for scale,
not to mention summer afternoon shading of the buildings themselves.
SITE PLAN
Building SF-B2, SW comer of the plan, is isolated by vehicle use areas, in violation of 3.5.2(C)
At least 5' of vehicle use area screening is required along the driveway at the SW corner of the plan per
3.2.1(E)(4).
Response. Acknowledged/SW corner buildings removed. See new site plan.
Excel Energy
#56-68N Rigden Farm, 7th Filing, The Willows -Project Development Plan -Type II (LUC)
July 18th 2001
As stated prior: Lots 12-29, Meters will need to be banked on front unit of each group. Lots 1-11, 33-47
will have individual gas services with joint electrical services. Lots 44-65 will have materials banked at
one location to serve cluster of attached units.
With T utility easements -Telephone, cable and electric equipment must remain outside easements or
water stop boxes are to be moved out of easement to enable installation of gas mains.
Response. Acknowledged/See new utility layout per utility coordination meetings.
—is— September 26, 2001
Another more commonly missed component is the required fire rated separation between units and in
attic spaces.
Response: Acknowledged/All units are single-family attached, therefore, there are no
handicap accessibility requirements.
a) Please number to pages of the site plan, landscape plans, and elevations as part of the same set
of drawings. For example page 1 of 9, 2 of 9 and so forth.
Response: Acknowledged.
b) We are very concerned that future residents may be surprised to find out that there is no off-
street guest and overflow parking. We would like to ensure that those who buy units in this
development are making an informed decision and realize that they are buying into a project that
has limited parking opportunities. Add a note to the site plan that initial buyers of the lots will
be notified that they are buying into a configuration with limited guest and overflow parking,
that households with more than two cars will not have on -site parking, and that the city accepts
no responsibility to solve the parking problem at any point in the future. We feel that this will
help minimize potential confusion and frustration of future homeowners.
Response. Acknowledged/Parking lot added to SW corner and off street around site.
c) Please see the attached "Revisions Routing Sheet" which indicates the number of copies that
need to be re -submitted.
Response: Acknowledged.
.•�+�":��w�w:�a
Overall, there is a very high degree of repetition of the large buildings on the west side of the plan, with
maximized building mass that meets the zoning 6-plex limit on what appears to be a technical loophole.
The 10-foot slot on axis across from the drive entrance appears to make two six-plexes out of something
designed as a 12-plex. Thus, no standard is being violated, but some questions are raised. Some of the
questions are for consideration and common understanding only. Is there any other purpose for the 10-
foot slot? What goes in the slot area? (Gravel mulch? Utility banks?).
We acknowledge the architecture of each building itself as offering positive visual interest and pleasing
scale elements.
However, will the densely packed repetition create an unduly negative effect in this Low Density
Neighborhood zone district area? Can the architects create some meaningful variation among the
multiple buildings, from color to materials to details? One reason for this question: standards were
carefully written to mitigate monotonous repetition of larger buildings, and applied to buildings larger
than 6-plexes. The idea and hope was that the 6-plex buildings and smaller would take care of themselves
as far as being designed with characteristics of "big houses" rather than "apartment complex buildings."
The proposed buildings read as an apartment complex, and in fact the elevations show them as single
large buildings in exceeding the 6-plex limits in letter as well as spirit. (The elevations need to be revised
to show the slots.)
A common comment from people in the development industry is that there are too many local
standards, which stifles variety and creative responsiveness. Here is a situation where Ft. Collins does not
have detailed standards to require attention to these questions. Can anything be done without standards
to creatively address these questions about monotonous repetition? Thank you for your consideration.
September 26, 2001
Basement areaways are not allowed to encroach on the public right-of-way easement. The homes will
have to be setback further or repositioned so as not to encroach on the public easement.
There are also questions regarding the proximity of the homes fronting onto the regional trail. To
properly buffer the homes from the trail, additional personal space should be incorporated into the
design of the home (i.e. larger porches) or into the lot (i.e. personal landscaping). Please see the attached
photos for reference.
Response: Acknowledged.
All Construction within the City of Fort Collins shall comply with current adopted editions of the
Uniform Codes:
1997 Uniform Building Code
1991 Uniform Mechanical Code 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code 1999 National Electrical Code
1995 Model Energy Code with amendments for residential.
Fort Collins Non-residential Energy Code, an amended version of ASHRAF/IES 90.1-1989. Accessible
and Usable Buildings and Facilities, ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998, as State adopted standard.
Wind Load: design for 100-MPH Exposure B or 100-MPH Exposure C if building site has flat open
terrain extending outward for 1/2 mile in any full quadrant. Dead Load: 15 PSF min.
Snow load Live load: 30 PSF Seismic Zone 1.
Response: Acknowledged.
Staff contacts
For questions pertaining to commercial construction, please contact Rick Lee.
For questions, which pertain to residential and/or multi -family, please contact Dick Valdez. Both can be
reached at221-6760.
For questions pertaining to required contractor and sub -contractor licensing, please contact Delynn
Coldiron at 221-6767.
Submittals
All submittals for review of construction documents and release of building permit, shall include:
• Completed building permit application per building.
• Completed application checklist for commercial and/or residential.
• (2) Complete sets of Colorado professional "Wet Stamped" plans, include: site plans,
engineered foundations, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
drawings.
• Completed Energy Code compliance forms.
#56-68N RIGDEN FARM, 7TH FILING, THE WILLOWS -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
PLAN -TYPE II (LUC)
Please find attached the various codes that the Fort Collins Building Department will enforce. The
information submitted suggests that multi -family housing will be provided. We want to inform you that
we are currently enforcing the 1998 ANSI for accessibility and a State statute, which requires that on
common property one accessible (Type A) unit for each 7 units or fraction thereof shall be provided.
Accessibility is required in most R-1 construction so pay careful attention to the requirements of ANSI
and what items are required in a type 'A' dwelling unit.
— 16 — September 26, 2001
Response: Acknowledged/Two coordination meetings have taken place since these
comments have been issued. At this time, all water and sewer services have adequate room.
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.
Response: Acknowledged.
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).
Response. Acknowledged.
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.
Response: Acknowledged.
8 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.
Response: Acknowledged.
9 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.
Response: Acknowledged.
10 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Remove building envelope lines. Section 3.5.2p) 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.
Response. Acknowledged.
11 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Show lot #'s on site plan.
Response: Acknowledged.
12 Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
I'm assuming "motor courts" are the multifamily buildings. They need to use legal terminology;
therefore they must label them as multi -family.
Response: Acknowledged/There are no multi family units on this site.
— 15 — September 26, 2001
Water Wastewater
35 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Show all water/sewer lines on the landscape plans and provide the required landscape/utility
separation distances.
Response: Acknowledged
37 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Include the standard general notes pertaining to landscape/utility separation distances and
locates of utilities on the landscape plan.
Response: Acknowledged.
39 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
It is important to coordinate the civil plans with the architectural plans for the placement of the
fire lines.
Response. Acknowledged.
40 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Will an irrigation tap be needed for this development? If SO, show and label on utility plans.
Response. Acknowledged/See plan.
41 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Where fire lines are opposite of one another use a cross on the water main rather than 2 tees.
Response: Acknowledged.
42 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Clearly show and label locations of all curb stops and meter pit location on the utility plans.
Response Acknowledged.
44 Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Maintain a 10-foot separation distance between thrust blocks and all other underground utilities.
Response: Acknowledged.
46 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.
Response: Acknowledged.
49 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.
Response. Acknowledged.
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.
September 26, 2001
45 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Stub street sidewalks to the edge of the property line to allow for future connections.
Response. Acknowledged.
47 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Recommend extending the porch for the homes facing Kansas Dr., Willow Dr., and Parkside Dr.
Response: Acknowledged/Porches have not been extended.
48 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Recommend 24-foot driveway cut rather than 28-foot drive cuts on Kansas Dr., Willow Dr., and
Parkside Dr.
Response: Acknowledged/Driveway cuts have been reduced to 24-Foot.
50 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).
Response: Acknowledged.
51 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 consistent within subdivision.
Response. Acknowledged.
53 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.
Response: Acknowledged variance granted.
54 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.
Response. Acknowledged.
55 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Sidewalk along the west side of Rigden Pkwy needs to be constructed to previously approved
widths.
Response. Acknowledged.
56 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.
Response: Acknowledged/Not further amenities have been included at this time.
57
Issue Contact Tom Reiff
Realign sidewalks for Blg-11 and Blg-12 (see red lines) (K. Reavis)
Response: Acknowledged.
-13—
September 26, 2001
the window wells, which could flood the basements in a 100-year event. Please can at
convenience to schedule a meeting to discuss this issue further.
Response. Acknowledged/JR Engineering has approved basements would be flooded in
the event of a 100 year event.
WE
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.
Response. Acknowledged/Sidewalk and sideslope are in conformance.
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
pertains to this site. Please revise offsite flows that flow through this site and adjust design on
any relevant conveyance elements.
Response: Acknowledged/Our calculations have been adjusted.
Transportation Planning
31
Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Directional access ramps are required at intersections with detached walks (LCUASS 16.3.1 A,5)
Response: Acknowledged.
32 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Connect sidewalk at 90-degree angle with driveway along Willow Drive, north of tree.
Response: Acknowledged.
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 consistent with the subdivision.
Response: Acknowledged.
34 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Neighborhood trail should be aligned with the access ramps that cross Custer Drive.
Response: Acknowledged.
36 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Site plan needs to show how the Kansas Drive and Custer Drive align.
Response: Acknowledged.
38 Issue Contact; Tom Reiff
Construct a temporary asphalt sidewalk along the temporary Kansas Dr. (LUC 3.2.2 C,7)
Response: Acknowledged.
43 Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Construct access ramps where sidewalks align to cross Kansas Dr. (see red lines) (LUC 3.2.2 C,2)
Response. Acknowledged.
— 12 — September 26, 2001
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.
Response: Acknowledged.
18
Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
FIRE SPRINKLERS
The following buildings are required to be fire sprinklered because they are out of access:
BG-1 through BG-8
BG-10 and BG-11
BG-16, BG-17 and BG-18
Response. Acknowledged.
59
Issue Contact: Ron Gonazles
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.
Response. Acknowledged.
Police
27 Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Difficult to assess safety and security -need details on lighting and landscaping.
Response: Acknowledged/See plan.
Stormwater utility
24
Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Please use Benchmark 13-93, which is closer to the site.
Response: Acknowledged.
25 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Please add more corner lot, high point, and low point spot elevations on grading plan.
Response. Acknowledged.
26 Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Please show detention pond summary table on drainage plan.
Response: Acknowledged no detention pond on our site.
28 Issue Contact: \Vas Lamarqua
Please add swale cross -sections for all swales with calculations in the report on drainage plan.
Also delineate swale locations on plans.
Response: Acknowledged.
29 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
- 11 — September 26, 2001
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.
Response: Acknowledged.
21 Issue Contact. Doug Moore
Site Issue-
50' Landscape Buffer should be 50' Natural Habitats & Features Buffer
Response. Acknowledged.
22 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)
Response: Acknowledged.
23 Issue Contact- Doug Moore
Limits of Development (LOD) 3.4.1(N)(1-5)-
0 Limits of Development (LOD) line shall be established 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.
Response: Acknowledged.
PFA
15
ADDRESSING
Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
All building addresses shall be visible from the street fronting the property. UFC901.4.4
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 reasonable steps have been
undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from non-compliance
with this regulation."
Response: Acknowledged/SW corner unites have been eliminated.
16
NOTE: Because Of the forementioned requirements, the two detached buildings in the far
Southwest corner labeled, as "SF-B2" and "BG-12" shall not be approved due to them having
no street frontage from which an address would originate.
WATER SUPPLY
Issue Contact. • Ron Gonzales
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 1,500 gpm at 20 psi. UFC901.2.2.2
Response. Acknowledged.
17 1 Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
— 10 — September 26, 2001
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?
Response: Acknowledged.
110
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Additional comments may be made with the re -submittal and detail in conformance with
LCUASS-see plans for additional information.
Response. Acknowledged.
Light & Power
1
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.
Response. Acknowledged/And adjusted.
2 Issue Contact- Monica Moore
Single-family units will require a utility easement between lots in order to provide a location for
electric services.
Response: Acknowledged/See plan.
3 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.
Response. Acknowledged/And adjusted.
4 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.
Response: Acknowledged/See plan.
Natural Resources
19 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
Coffins 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.
Response. Acknowledged/Submitted previously to Troy, jones.
20 Issue Contact: Doug Moore
Environmental Assessment-
— 9 — September 26, 2001
Do all trench drains have enough capacity?
Response: Acknowledged/Yes.
101 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Add "or approved equivalent" to all notes specifying Neenah trench drain.
Response: Acknowledged.
102 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
A variance request is required for the instances where the minimum off street parking
setbResponse: Acknowledged distance is not being met per the requirements in 19-03 in
LCUASS.
Response: Acknowledged.
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.
Response: Acknowledged.
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."
Response: Acknowledged.
105 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Ensure that line weights and types differ between lot lines, edge of pavement, utilities, etc.
Response: Acknowledged.
106 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.
Response: Acknowledged/And adjusted.
107 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Correct stationing labeling, street names, etc. on the utility plan.
Response: Acknowledged.
108 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.
Response: Acknowledged/And adjusted.
109 Issue Contact Marc Virata
— 8 — September 26, 2001
91 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Please refer to Appendix E4 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards for the
checklist requirements. This is required to be completed and submitted with all projects under
the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and will help ensure that submittal
requirements are being met.
Response: Acknowledged.
92 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Replace General Notes on Utility Plan set with General Notes per LCUASS.
Response. Acknowledged.
93 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Ensure two benchmarks are used for the General Notes.
Response: Acknowledged.
94 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
A trench drain appears to be missing on Sheet 7.
Response. Acknowledged/Trench drain detail added.
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.
Response. Acknowledged/Directional ramps added.
96 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
The street corner radii for Parkfront out to Custer and Parkside and to Rigden are required to be
a maximum of 20' per LCUASS (8.2.9).
Response. Acknowledged street corner radii reduced to 20'
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 rakes place to remove the crown from the
street at an intersection
-label cross pan widths
Response: Acknowledged/Information added.
98 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Continue offsite design of Kansas north of this site (500 feet required per LCUASS.)
Response: Acknowledged/See plan.
99 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Please show the access ramps scaled out on the utility plans.
Response: Acknowledged.
100 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
— 7 — September 26, 2001
The sidewalk along the west side of Parkfront Drive that meanders round the tree needs to be in
a public access easement.
Response. Acknowledged.
83 Issue Contact- Marc Virata
Are the street names considered okay by the City and LEITA?
Response: Acknowledged/street names have been confirmed.
84 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.
Response. Acknowledged.
86 Issue Contact- Marc Virata
The units on the southwest comer 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.
Response: Acknowledged/SW units have been removed.
87 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Correct private drive maintenance note (Natural Resources will not maintain.)
Response. Acknowledged.
88 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.
Response: Acknowledged/After speaking to Ron Gonzales motor -court driveways are no
longer needed to as emergency easement.
89
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.
Response: Acknowledged/Sight distance easement has been verified.
90 1 Issue Contact- Marc Virata
In general, the utility plan submittal is of good quality, however, as the submittal falls under the
Larimer 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.
Response. Acknowledged/Plans were designed in conformance with LCUASS.
— 6 — September 26, 2001
111 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 acre, one to determine the net residential acreage.
Response: Acknowledged/See plan.
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.
Response: Acknowledged/See plan.
Engineering
13 Issue Contact- Marc Virata
Add Light and Power to the City of Fort Collins Utility Plan Approval Block.
Response: Acknowledged.
14 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Another utility coordination meeting is strongly encouraged.
Response: Acknowledged/We have met twice since these comments have been issued.
78 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Letters of intent for all offsite easements are required before a hearing.
Response: Acknowledged
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.
Response: Acknowledged has been handled by Wheeler Commercial.
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.
Response: Acknowledged/Ground water analysis report has been done by Terracon.
81 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Street names are not the same between the site and utility plan sheets. Please ensure they
correspond.
Response: Acknowledged/Street names have been changed.
82 Issue Contact: Marc Virata
— 5 — September 26, 2001
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.
Response. Acknowledged/6 units have been eliminated and parkinglot added to the SW
corner.
75 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.
Response: Acknowledged/All units are considered to be single-family attached not multi-
family units.
76
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
explanation of what the modification gives permission for you to do, and any conditions
associated with the approval.
Response: Acknowledged
77
Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Street Names
The plat and the site plan have street names that do not match
Response: Acknowledged/Street names changed.
85
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 sense from a site -planning standpoint.
Response: Acknowledged engineering variance granted.
- 4 — September 26, 2001
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.
Response: Acknowledged/SW corner units have been eliminated and parkinglot added.
As well as further off streetparking area.
71 Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Solar -Oriented Lot Requirement
Section 3.2.3(B) 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.
Response: Acknowledged/see plan.
72 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.
Response: Acknowledged/SW corner units have been eliminated.
73 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 constitute "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.
Response: Acknowledged/SW corner units have been eliminated.
74 Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Density
The approved Rigden Farm Overall 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
— 3 — September 26, 2001
reduce the density of the project, particularly in the motor court unit area. It is staffs 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 the 13 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.
Response: Acknowledged/SW corner units have been eliminated and parking lot added.
67 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.
Response. Acknowledged
68 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 Drainage way, 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
drafting this request for the other site.
Response: Acknowledged/Wheeler Commercial has taken care of this issue.
69 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.
Response. Acknowledged/see plan.
70 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
-2— September 26, 2001
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.
Response: Acknowledged
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.
Response: Acknowledged
64
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.
Response: Acknowledged/added
65 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(Iq(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.
Response: Acknowledged/4 bedroom units have been eliminated.
66 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 are just too many units in a tight configuration. We think the way to solve this is to
SLAYT, CONSTRUCTION, INC.
September 26, 2001
Staff has reviewed your submittal for RIGDEN FARM, 7TH Filing, THE WILLOWS456-98N, and we
offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Current Planning
60
Street Names
Issue Contact: Troy Jones
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 database to avoid name duplications and names
that are very similar to other existing street names.
Response: Acknowledged/street names have been changed.
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 are approximately 1,880 feet
in circumference. The above code section [3.2.1(D)(2)(a)] would 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 1,050 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 shows 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).
Response: Acknowledged
62 Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Species Diversity
Section 3.2.1(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
,asrar���.am: cwwncra.
215 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 220 • LAKEWOOD, COLORADO • 80228
PHONE: (303) 989-2026 • FAX: (303) 989-2049