Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARVEST PARK - PDP - 25-98A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSJ. e T ax cLscape Arcfi itcct t-- - Site PLarir>irig • Graphics 719 Pear Street - Fort C.ot1.r,S CO 80521 - 970.472.9125 • FAX 97O.493.8634 Block 14, lots 3-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18-25 Block 14, lots 1, 2, 5, 8 Block 15, lots 1-2, 4-7, 9-10 Block 15 lots 3 & 8 Block 16 Block 17 Block 18, lots 1-2, 4-5, 18-22 Block 18, lots 3, 6-10, 13-17 Block 18, lots 11-12 Block 19, lots 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 13-14 Block 19, lots 2, 8, 10, & 12 Block 20, lots 1, 4, 6, 26-29 Block 20, lots 8-23, 3143 Block 20, lots 2-3, 5, 7, 24-25, & 30 Block 21, lots 1-3 Block 21, lots 4-5 Block 22, lots 9, 11-12 Block 22, lots 1-8, 10, 13-16 Block 23, lots 1-5 Block 23, lots 6-8 Block 24, lots 1-8, 11, 14 Block 24, lots 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 13' setback No setback modification required 13' setback No setback modification required No setback modification required No setback modification required 13' setback No setback modification required 12' setback 13' setback No setback modification required 13' setback 9' setback No setback modification required 1 P setback No setback modification required 12' setback No setback modification required 12' setback No setback modification required No setback modification required 12' setback With this configuration the setback percentages are as follows 9' setback 115 lots 24.5 % 11' setback 32 lots 6.8% 12' setback 20 lots 4.3% 13' setback 81 lots 17.2% No setback modification required 222 lots 47.2% Total 464 units 100% These percentages are consistent with the originally submitted graphic. The original graphic was intended to illustrate the potential effects of the setback request, and was not intended to specify a particular model on any lot, as was noted on the graphic. We hope this satisfies the planning and zoning boards concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. ;Sinc ely, Terence C. Hoaglund, ASLA cc. Darwin Horan, The Writer Corporation Dino DiTullio, The Everitt Companies r t LiCllOS T ar�dscape Architecture Site Plaxirl rig • Graphics 719 Pear Street • Fort 4=cAh ls, CO 805521 • 970.472.9125 - FAX 970-493.8634 October 4, 1999 Bob Blanchard Planning Director Ron Fuchs Project Planner City of Fort Collins Current Planning 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Bob, 1�TC� 0T� 1 OCT 0 6 1999 D In our initial modification request on the setbacks at Harvest Park, we originally requested a 9' setback be applied to all lots to be simple and to allow flexibility on all lots. However, we had no intention to actually use a 9' setback on all lots. To address the Planning and Zoning Board concerns, we have made a lot by lot evaluation to determine the best setback request that meets the intent of the board. This should clarify the setback issue. We would be willing to add this information to the final plat to ease administration. The setbacks would apply to the lots as outlined in the following chart. Block 1, lots 14 No setback modification required Block 2, lots 1-5 and 14-18 No setback modification required Block 2, lots 6-13 9' setback Block 3, lots 1-5, & 14 9' setback Block 3 lots 6-9 and 15-18 13' setback Block 3 lots 10-13 11' setback Block 4, lots 1-5 9' setback Block 4, lots 6-9 and 15-18 13' setback Block 4, lots 10-14 11' setback Block 5 & Block 6 No setback modification required Block 7, lots 1-8 No setback modification required Block 7, lot 9 11' setback Block 7, lots 10-16, & 24-26 9' setback Block 7, lots 18, 19, 21 & 23 13' setback Block 7, lots 17, 20 & 22 No setback modification required Block 7 lots 27-32 No setback modification required Block 8 No setback modification required Block 9, lots 1-4, 14-26, & 34-41 9' setback Block 9, lots 6, 7, 9, 28, 30-31 13' setback Block 9, lots 5, 8, 10-13, 27, 29, 32-33 No setback modification required Block 10, lots 1-9 11' setback Block 10, lots 10-18 9' setback Block 11 lots 1-10 11' setback Block 11, lots 11-20 9' setback Block 12, lots 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 12-17 No setback modification required Block 12, lots 2 & 5 13' setback Block 12, lots 9-11 9' setback Block 13, lots 1-4, 6, 9, 11-20, 22-23, 26-27 No setback modification required Block 13, lots 5, 7, 8, 10 13' setback Block 13, lots 21-28 12' setback Block 14, lots 11, 13-17, 26-29 9' setback reoriented to achieve solar compliance. Some additional lots could be altered to provide solar compliance, but we feel this would not enhance the overall design of the community. The lots in particular are lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 25, & 26 of block seven, and lots 1, 2, 16, & 19 of block nine. Currently eight of these lots face two of the parks scattered throughout the community. Reorienting these lots to meet solar compliance would face them onto a collector, and would not enhance the overall community character. In addition, most of the homes have been designed with the major living spaces on one side of the home, surrounding a mini -courtyard. On the east -west oriented lots, most of these homes would be positioned to have the major living areas facing south, providing some passive solar gain. On the north - south oriented lots, the majority of these living areas are oriented to the west. While this project does not meet solar compliance for the required units, if the project is taken as a whole, the single family attached units are functionally the same as the duplex units. If these units were counted, this project would have 307 out of 470 units, or 65.3% of the units meeting solar compliance. 3. Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(a) Landscape Standards— Street Trees This section calls for street trees to be placed in the center of parkway strips at 30-40' intervals. While this plan meets the spacing requirements, we have proposed some parkway strips to be 15 feet wide in lieu of the standard six feet. This occurs on portions of Rock Creek Drive, and Country Main. These two streets provide important connections between destinations. With the larger tree lawns, homes are set back further from the street, and pedestrians are further separated from the street, enhancing the pedestrian experience. Within these widened parkway strips, we have proposed staggering the trees slightly, rather than centering them within the parkway strip. This allows the trees to be spaced slightly closer together, providing additional trees. This also plays with depth perception making the homes appear to be set back further, and the pedestrian separated from the street even more than they already are, without sacrificing safety or other related concerns. The proposed plantings meet or exceed the intent of the code. Harvest Park Alternative Compliance Requests 10/5/99 SrLnlOS T aracLscape 2NxxA- ate- t • Site Plata*+; Ig • Graphics 719 Pear Street • Fort Collins, CO 80521 • 970.472.9125 • FAX 970.493.8634 Alternative Compliance Requests 1. Section 3.6.3 (A-F) Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards Section F calls for street connections to surrounding neighborhoods to be made at intervals not to exceed 660 feet. This is not entirely possible at Harvest Park due to existing development and natural features. Specific areas are where alternative compliance is requested include: North The north boundary of Harvest Park abuts Wildwood Third Filing, an existing single family development, and the future Harmony Park, a City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Park. When this area was originally planned and approved, only one street connection was provided to Harvest Park which is Corbett Drive, a collector street which has been continued in Harvest Park. Along the future neighborhood park, we are providing a street that fronts on the park, providing convenient access for the community to the park. West The west boundary of Harvest Park abuts Stetson Creek Third Filing, also a single family development. This area was also originally planned with only one street connection to Harvest Park, Rock Creek Drive, a collector, which is being continued in Harvest Park. The existing development precludes any additional street or pedestrian connections. South The southern boundary of Harvest Park is the McClleland Drainage channel, immediately south of which is the proposed Sage Creek Development. The overall distance would require up to four street connections across the channel between the projects. Since this drainage area will be rebuilt and enhanced into a natural area, City staff and both project developers have agreed that two full street connections, and two additional pedestrian connections would be more appropriate in this locale. The combination of the street and pedestrian connections do allow full multi -modal connectivity between the developments, as well as to minimize impacts to the natural area. Even with these restrictions, Harvest Park does promote connectivity by providing direct connections to the adjacent neighborhoods, these connections provide traffic distribution to four arterials within the square mile. We have also planned for, or are making, several connections to County Road 9, a minor arterial to the east, as required by code. 2. Section 3.23 (A-D) Solar Access, Orientation, Shading Section B calls for at least 65% of the lots less than 15,000 sq. ft. in area in single and two family residential areas to must conform to the definition of a solar -oriented lot. At Harvest Park, all the lots are less than 15,000 sq. ft. with a mix of single family detached, duplex, and single family attached units. Of the 470 units on the site plan, 391 are required to meet solar compliance. 246 units, or 62.9% of the units meet compliance, with eight additional units required to meet compliance. When originally submitted, this project had 481 units with 239 out of 365 units, 65.5%, of the units being in compliance. As comments were made, and the plans revised, solar compliance was eroded. Many of the single family attached units were changed to duplex units at the request of Poudre Fire Authority to meet current policies of that agency. These units had an east west orientation, which further eroded solar compliance. In an effort to achieve solar compliance, as many lots as possible were Harvest PFILE COPY PA Alternative Compliance Requests 10/5/99 No Text 16) A note has been added that screens all exterior mechanical devises, subject to the limits of the individual utility companies. 17) All redlined documents have been returned. 18) The Trail system has been coordinated with Transportation Planning Services. This site is surrounded on two sides by public streets, with the other sides being an irrigation I appreciate your time in reviewing these plans. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sinc_ ely, Terence C. Hoaglund A Cc Darwin Horan, The Writer Corporation Dino DiTullio, The Everitt Companies Jim Allen -Morley, The Sear Brown Group Harvest Park Response to PDP comments #1 10/5/99 8) Architectural elevations a) The multi -family elevations are identical to the Stetson Creek Fifth Filing elevations, which have been approved under the land use code. Height dimensions have been added, and building labels clarified. We have also added some detailing per staffs request b) The plans have been revised to reflect this code requirement. c) The buildings in question have been changed meet the requirements of the code. d) As previously mentioned, the multi -family elevations are identical to those approved with the Stetson Creek Fifth Filing. The majority of the single family homes have garages accessed by shared rear driveways. The few front loaded homes have garages located in the rear of the units.. e) The appropriate materials have been shown on the elevation plans. Conceptual elevations and color schemes have been provided for the single family, but are subject to vary as some floor plans may be dropped with others added as the market dictates. f) The building elevation labels have been added as requested. g) Scaled elevations of the daycare and recreation center has been included. h) We have provided elevations of various elements referenced on the site plan 9) LMN District comments a) A graphic has been included with this letter that illustrates how the various calculations were determined. b) Mix of Housing (this section has very little to do with actual elevations) Section 4.4(D)(2)(a) This site plan clearly has at least three (3) distinct housing types. Section 4.4(D)(2)(b) The housing lot sizes are clearly varied, better than most other projects in process or recently approved. Section 4.4(D)(2)(c) This site plan shows single family detached dwellings in a variety of lot sizes, two family dwellings, and single family attached dwellings. Section 4.4.(D)(2)(d) This site plan clearly illustrates that no single housing type is more than 90% of the total. c) The revisions to the site plan have eliminated any blocks longer than 700 feet 10) Street Pattern Connectivity a) The streets have been connected as requested. b) bb) Reference the variance request submitted below. c) bbb) Reference the variance request submitted below. d) This has been resolved with the site redesign. 11) As has been enforced in the past, the sign code dictates placement and size of signs in the LMN zone. The residential sign district applies to commercial signage, with such signage being shown on the daycare -recreation center elevations. 12) The individual track and open space areas have been clarified on the legend. 13) The locations of all transformers have been shown. 14) The notes related to the lighting plan have been added. 15) The irrigation connection points have been shown. Harvest Park Response to PDP comments #1 10/5/99 T. Zoning Department • The lettered lot designations were in reference to lot sizes. The lot designations have been removed as agreed upon. • Banners on poles have been eliminated. • Sign regulations are per code. • Tree plantings shown are similar to other recent projects. Exact species and specifications have been worked out with the city forester. • The elevation labels have been corrected. • Elevations have been worked out with staff. • All lot areas have been shown on the plat. • A modification to the setback requirements has been submitted. • The neighborhood center has been included in the land use breakdown, building envelopes shown and architectural elevations provided. U. Current Planning Department 1) The sheet labels have been corrected. 2) The appropriate scales have been shown. 3) The scales have been verified and adjusted accordingly. 4) We have reformatted the property description. 5) All property lines, row widths, walk widths, etc. have been delineated. 6) A formatted breakdown of densities has supplied. 7) Site & Landscape Plan comments a) Street Trees have been shown as indicated. Also reference the alternative compliance request. b) The minimum species diversity has been provided per code. c) As discussed, additional trees have been placed south of building x at 40' o.c. per code. d) All parking lot areas have been screened with shrub beds, trees, or as noted. e) All visual and sight distance triangles have been addressed. f) It has been determined that the areas previously referenced as multi -family are in fact single family attached residences and the access to these units are private drives, not parking lots. Due to the number of public streets, there are only 22 guest parking spaces throughout the whole project. These range from a 3 spaces, to a 6 space parking area. Therefore, these areas should not be subject to the parking lot landscape percentages. Section 3.2.1(E)(5xa){e) applies to walkways within the parking lot area. g) Site amenities such as benches, bike racks, etc. were shown on the original submittal plans, however, additional amenities have been provided. h) Per my discussions with Kathleen Raevis, since these units all have two car attached garages, bike racks at the ratio requested are not required. We have added some bike racks within the single family attached areas. i) As agreed upon, primary walks and pedestrian connections have been changed to a six foot width. Other walk sizes are noted. j) The proposed vegetation of Tract G has been clarified. k) The ditch banks and channels have been delineated. 1) As was previously discussed, a building and unit typical has been provided. This shows the minimum number of shrubs to be provided, actual species may vary to provide interest, accommodate microclimates, etc. m) This rectangle has been removed, it referenced an old fence no longer on the site. Harvest Park Response to PDP comments #1 10/5/99 • The northern traffic circle has been eliminated, the southern one has been retained since this is now a through connection • A variance request has been submitted by Sear Brown for the traffic circles. • Harvest Park Lane has been modified as requested. • Reference the alternative compliance request • County Fair Lane has been reduced to a local street. • The notation for Country Main has been changed to a modified connector. • The placement of the rear drive as noted has been changed. • Additional pedestrian access ramps have been added at the parks as agreed upon with staff. • Restriction on elements with the traffic circles has been noted. • The utility department has seen and approved of the proposed street light layout. • Signs in the right-of-way have been eliminated. • A detail of the special paving areas have been included. • Language has been added that applies site line restrictions to any art elements within the traffic circles. • The pedestrian access ramps have been added. • A variance request has been submitted by Sear Brown for the walks at park locations. • This sidewalk connection has been included. • All landscaping will comply with sight distance easement requirements. S. Transportation Planning • Per discussions with Mark Jackson and engineering, we have moved the pedestrian crossing locations. • All vegetation will meet site triangle requirements. • A sidewalk connection to Preston Jr. High has been included. • Street and Trail connections to Sage Creek have been made per agreements with staff. • Bike parking near the daycare has been added. • An enhanced crosswalk has been added at the Corbett bike trail crossing. • The additional ramps have been added. A variance request has been submitted for the other walks at the parks. • Additional crosswalks have been added along County Fair Lane. • County Fair Lane has been reduced to a local street. • Ramps and bike racks have been added to Tract J. A variance request has been submitted for the perimeter walks. • Crosswalks have been added. • Ramps and bike parking have been added to Tract F. Some perimeter walks have been added with the street redesign. • Additional bike racks have been added. • The pedestrian refuge areas were included with our original submittal. • 14' travel lanes are required by fire to have a total 20' travel width. • Harvest Park Lane width has been increased. • The gaps in lighting coverage are along public streets. All public streets will be lighted per electric utility standards. • Lighting on rear drives will be by standard lights attached to the garages. Harvest Park Response to PDP comments #1 10/5/99 3 • As previously stated, all areas will meet city site distance criteria. • As per city standard, all internal streets do include parking. There never was any proposal to restrict parking. I. Streets See engineering response J. Water/Wastewater • The requested easement has been provided on the plat, or is within the ROW. IC Fort Collins — Loveland Water District • Comments are received and acknowledged. L. Light and Power • A utility coordination meeting has been held, with ongoing utility coordination. • All city street lighting will conform to city street light standards. • A utility plan is forthcoming as discussed in the utility coordination meeting. • All meters will be ganged on attached units. M. Natural Resources • We are not proposing improvements adjacent to the McClleland Channel. All areas will be seeded with a native grass per natural resource specifications. • Drystack walls within the natural areas buffer are no longer proposed. • The channel will not be improved with this development. N. Street Oversizing • Street oversizing issues have been worked out. • Construction of medians, traffic circles, etc. will be at the developer expense. O. Poudre Fire Authority • All address numerals shall be visible as requested. • The Cul-de-sacs in question have been eliminated with this plan. • Hydrants will be supplied as shown on the utility plans. • A fire lane plan shall be submitted prior to construction. • A preliminary hazardous materials report was supplied with the original submittal. • All single family attached units meet fire access requirements, therefore no sprinklers are required. P. Building Inspections Department • Technical code requirements are acknowledged. • Per Rick Lee, these units due not need to meet ADA requirements since they are on fee simple lots. Q. Stormwater See Engineering Response. R. Engineering • It has been resolved with engineering that all of the rear drives are to be private shared drives. • Street widths have been adjusted. Narrow locals are no longer being used • A modification request has been submitted that addresses the rear drives Harvest Park Response to PDP comments #1 10/5/99 2 lOS Landscape Architecture •Site Plaiir�;r,g �rrapYucs 719 Pear Street - Fort Collins, CO 80521 - 970.472.912.5 •FAX 970.493.8634 October 5, 1999 Ronald G. Fuchs, Project Planner Current Planning Division City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Ron, Attached are revisions to Harvest Park Project Development Plans, revised in response to City staff and agency review comments. The comments made and revisions requested on the PDP have been addressed as follows: A. Public Service • Standard nine foot utility easements have been agreed upon and shown. • Easements have been indicated on the plat. • A 15' utility easement has been provided along County Road Nine. • As previously stated, the developer prefers the utility lines to be located underground. B. Mapping/Drafting (redline comments) • These comments have been addressed on the plat by Sear Brown C. Dixon No comments at this time. D. Water Conservation • No comments at this time. E. Post Office • No comments at this time. F. TC1 • Public utility easements are being provided along streets and rear drives. • A broadband utility easements will be applied for. G. Park Planning and Development xxx. H. Traffic Operations • The banners have been removed from the pedestrian lights. • Parking space ratios have been provided for the duplex and single family attached. • A detail of the crosswalks has been included, raised crosswalks are not proposed. • The ID sign has been removed from the median. • A detail of the pedestrian refuge has been included. • A typical landscape plan around the pedestrian refuge areas/ traffic circle has been included. • An updated traffic study has been submitted. Harvest Park Response to PDP comments # 1 10/5/99 FILE COPY