Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK - PDP - 49-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)25. The cul-de-sac connections to the sidewalk along County Road 11 are not acceptable. Planning 26. The park site requirement is of major concern. It is a Land Use Standard in the LMN Zoning District [Section 4.4(D)(7)]. Therefore, a request for a modification of this standard must be submitted, with the applicant's justification, if a park site is not provided; however, this will bump the project up to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. 27. Due to the missing sheets from the utility plans and the determination that this submittal is incomplete, the review of the project is being stopped until the missing information is provided. The submittal of the required additional documentation will constitute the initial submittal of the project and the 4 week review period will begin. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. The number of copies of each revised document to be resubmitted, after the next 4-week review period, is defined on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. You may contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions about these comments or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss them. Sincerely, Steve Olt Project Planner cc: Zoning Engineering Stormwater Water & Wastewater Transportation Planning Advance Planning Stewart 8v Associates Project File 1 15. A copy of a portion of the Landscape Plan, with comments from Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, is attached to this letter. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly staff review meeting on October 28, 1998: Engineering 16. The various plans are inconsistent with one another. 17. The utility plans are missing 6 sheets. This is an incomplete set of plans and, therefore, staff should stop review of them until the missing sheets are submitted. 18. An additional 2' of right-of-way and a 15' wide utility easement is needed along County Road 11. 19. Lots 9 -18 (at the west end of Sherwood Forest Court) are out of compliance from the maximum 660' from single point of access requirement for emergency access. Stormwater 20. This project may be premature. It is not ready from a Stormwater standpoint based on the off -site Ditch Company requirements. . 21. The proposed temporary retention cannot be located along the south end of the site. It cannot be next to the proposed homes. Off -site easements for the retention pond are needed. 22. This site will drain into the Outlet Canal #8. Natural Resources 23. Native vegetation should be used in Tract A, the stormwater facility. Transportation Planning 24. There is no bicycle/pedestrian/transit Level of Service evaluation in the TIS and, therefore, it is not sufficient. A supplement to the TIS must be submitted addressing the alternative modes of transportation. 12. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. The TIS did not include the required pedestrian, bicycle, or transit Level of Service analysis. It must be determined how this site fits with the [northeast Fort Collins] Mountain Vista Subarea Plan and ensure that short-term and long-term bicycle/pedestrian connections can be accommodated. Also, consideration of proposed future transit service and the location of the new Poudre R-1 School District high school must be addressed. b. County road 11 and Mountain vista Drive should be a minimum of 36' wide to provide for two 6' wide bicycle lanes and two 24' wide travel lanes during the interim time until these streets are fully improved. Then they will need to include 8' wide bicycle lanes. C. Additional comments are on a red -lined Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments. 13. The Streets Department asked who will be responsible for snow removal on the sidewalk along Robin Hood Lane. 14. Matt Baker of the Engineering Department offered the following comments: a. This project does not meet the criteria for street oversizing participation by the City. b. Off -site street improvements required along the County Road 11 and Mountain Vista Drive frontages to this property, and from the site along Mountain Vista Drive to County Road 9E, then down County Road 9E to tie into the Timberline Road project south of East Vine Drive (at International Boulevard). C. Revise this development plan to match the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Please contact Matt, at 224-6108, if you have questions about these comments. 1 are placed at the lot line (between 2 lots) and cannot be where shared driveways intersect with the street. C. Street trees must maintain a 40' clearance to street lights (20' if the tree is an ornamental). Please contact Doug, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these comments. 7. Dean Smith of the Boxelder Sanitation District stated that subject to negotiations between the applicant, the District, and other affected property owners, a recovery agreement will be sought by the District and they will serve this project. 8. Ken Kirchhoff and Kenneth Jackson of Police Dispatch stated that the street names Robin Hood Lane and Marian Court need to be changed. They are sound alike or same names as streets that already exist. 9. A copy of the comments received from Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined reports and plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 10. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 11. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department offered the following comments: a. The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is inadequate. It does not address alternative modes of transportation. b. The street network in the TIS for the Storybook ODP is confusing for the public. C. There is insufficient street network in the area. Off -site street improvements should be required. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about these comments. g. The building footprints should not be shown on the Site Plan if the "Typical Building Envelope" is used. Also, indicate by envelope or clearly state the building setbacks. Corner lots setbacks should also be stated, if different. Please contact Jenny, Gary, or Peter at 221-6760 if you have questions about these comments. 4. Webb Jones of the East Larimer County (ELCO) Water District has provided comments on red -lined utility plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 5. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 800' in a residential project, along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,000 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 pounds. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. NOTE: Hydrants shall be located at all entrances to the cul-de- sacs, starting on Chesapeake Drive; and they must meet any other ELCO Water District requirements. b. ADDRESS NUMERALS: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property and posted with a minimum of 6" high numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on a brown brick is not acceptable). Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. The closest power is approximately one mile away. The developer may be required to provide off -site easements and/or pay for construction of a temporary electric line to this site. b. Many "paired" water service locations will need to be adjusted (separated) after the electrical system is designed, but before installation of the water system. Electric vaults and street lights d 2. Jim Slagle of the Public Service Company offered the following comments: a. PSC has existing overhead power lines on the east side of County Road 11 and the north side of Mountain Vista Drive (County Road 50). Are these lines to be relocated as overhead or are they to be converted to underground? And at whose expense, the developer's or the City's? b. The easements as shown on the subdivision plat look OK. 3. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. The proposed land use is single family attached dwellings, not multi -family dwellings (under Site Data on the Site Plan). b. There is a small neighborhood park requirement [Section 4.4(D)(7)] in the LMN Zoning District in the LUC. Either aneighborhood park or a privately owned park, that is at least 1 acre in size, shall be located within a maximum of 1/3 mile (1,760 feet) of at least 90% of all dwellings in a development project as measured along street frontage. The park must meet the criteria as set forth in this section of the Code. C. The dwelling units with street -facing garages do not meet the requirement of Section 3.5.2(E)(1) in the LUC. Also; the information provided to date is not sufficient to determine if the side -loaded garage units meet the requirement of Section 3.5.2(E)(2) in the Code. d. The building elevations as submitted should have the elevations labeled (front, rear, left, right, etc.) and front -loaded or side -loaded. More information is needed for clarity to evaluate the compliance with the Code. e. Building elevations are needed for the units on Lots 13, 14, 55, and 56. f. Landscaping phases might be appropriate, as the requirement for installation of landscaping or a letter of credit/escrow/bond for the landscaping prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy would apply to the whole development unless otherwise specified. Commui , Planning and Environmental Current Planning City of Fort Collins November 4, 1998 Gary Mackey 6804 Aaron Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Gary, vices Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Storybook Project Development Plan (PDP) that was submitted to the City on September 23, 1998, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This property is located at the northeast corner of County Road 11 and Mountain Vista Drive. It is in the LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zoning District. Single family attached dwellings are permitted in this District, subject to an administrative review (Type I) and public hearing for a decision, unless any modifications of standards are required. The need for any modification would make the request for development a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. - As defined in Section 4.4(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code (LUC), the minimum net residential density shall be 5 dwelling units per acre of residential land, except that residential developments containing 20 acres or less and located in the "Infill Area" of Fort Collins need not comply with this requirement. As defined in Section 4.4(D)(1)(b) of the LUC, the maximum gross residential density shall be 8 dwelling units per acre, except that any development plan that is a qualified affordable housing project .containing 10 acres or less and located in the "Infill Area" of Fort Collins may be 12 dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. This proposal is for 74 single family attached dwelling units on 12.40 net acres, equaling 5.97 dwelling units per acre. It is not in the "Infill Area" of the City as defined in the LUC; therefore, the exception does not apply to this development request. The Site Data on the Site Plan indicates the land use to be multi -family, which is not correct. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020