Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAGE CREEK - PDP - 25-98B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEW12. This development request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Current Planning Department office. The fees are due at the time of submittal of the required documents for the Overall Development Plan (if necessary), Project Development Plan, and Final Compliance phases of development review by City staff and affected outside reviewing agencies. - - - — 13. This development proposal. is subject to the requirements as set forth in the City's LUC, specifically Articles 2. Administration (Development Review Procedures), Article 3. General Development Standards, and Article 4. [Zoning] Districts. There are Land Use and Development Standards in Division 4.4 - LMN District of the LUC that this development proposal must comply with. Please contact Rob, at 221-6750, if you have -questions about these comments. 9. Janet Meisel of the Parks Planning Division offered the following comments: a. A meeting should be held to discuss some potential eonflicts associated with this development proposal. People will want to park on the streets south of the planned City park next to the school. This will probably create neighborhood conflicts, based on past experiences. Possibly a neighborhood meeting should be held. b. The design of the City's park will occur in the year 2000 and the construction of the park would probably be in the year 2001. C. The standard neighborhood and community parkland fees, for each residential dwelling unit, will apply to this development. Please contact Janet, at 221-6367, if you have questions about these comments. 10. Clark Mapes and Peter Wray of the Advance Planning Department offered the following comments: a. This plan should be consistent with the current Fossil Creek Plan. b. The design of the green corridor through the development is an important element of the plan, including adequate and logical bicycle/pedestrian connections and how the corridor interfaces with the street crossing. C. Bicycle/pedestrian connections across the drainageway are important. Please contact Clark, at 221-6225, or Peter, at 221-6754, if you have questions about these comments. 11. A neighborhood meeting would not be required for this development proposal if it remains an administrative, Type I review; however, due to the potential for some controversial issues associated with the project it would be beneficial to hold a meeting prior to formal submittal of the development request. Please contact Steve Olt of the Current Planning Department to assist you in scheduling this meeting. He can be reached at 221-6341. p There will be public input and presentations to, City Council. It is referred to as the Precip. Study. e. The natural stream values similar to the Foothills Channel is the vision for this stream and not a duplication of the generic, straight channel in Stetson Creek. - - — £ There is a possibility of some cost sharing on the County Road 9 and McClellands Creek crossing with the Stormwater Utility and Street Oversizing. The internal street crossings would be the responsibility of the developer. Please contact Glen, at 221-6065, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department'offered the following comments: a. There has been significant concerns from other neighborhoods in this area about excessive traffic in the neighborhoods associated with schools. This is something that probably should be brought forward in a neighborhood meeting prior to formal submittal of a development proposal. b. A TIS, addressing the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit requirements, must be submitted to the City with the PDP. C. Collector streets must provide for 6' wide on -street bicycle lanes. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments. 7. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that there is future transit service planned on Timberline Road and County Road 9. 8. Rob Wilkinson of the Current Planning Department offered the following comments regarding natural resource issues: a. He would like to visit the site to locate any existing natural areas. The boundaries of existing and proposed natural areas should be staked in the field. b. A Lady Trusses Orchid Study may be required for this development proposal. e. The City's water conservation standards for landscaping and irrigation systems will apply to this site if served by the City. Information on these standards can be obtained at the Water Department and the. Current Planning Department. f. Plant investment fees and water rights will apply to this development if served by the City, and they will be due at time of issuance of building permits. Please contact Roger, at 221-6681, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Glen Schlueter of the Stormwater Utility offered the following comments: a. The site is located within the McClelland/Mail Creek Basin, where the new development fee is $3,717 per acre and that is subject to the runoff coefficient reduction. The site is also located in inventory grid 9s 12R & 13R. b. The standard drainage and erosion control reports and bans are required and they must be prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado. C. The McClelland/Mail Creek Basin has not been updated to present modeling criteria and needs to be put on disk. Northern Engineering y' had begun the work in conjunction with the Fossil Creek PUD but then it was decided to build a phase to the south first. The Stormwater Utility has its consultant working on the area to the north and plan to expand their scope into this area, so it is important to know the timing of this project. * It is understood that the schedule for this project, according to Cityscape Urban Design, is to submit the Project Development, Plan (PDP) this Fall; the Ruff Property portion in November and the County Road 36 Property portion near the end of the year (1998). One alternative is to have the developer's consultant do it just as the Fossil Creek PUD developer was doing. This issue may lengthen the development review process since under .the L V C all issues need to be addressed before scheduling the item for public hearing. d. The staged release in the old plan is a good place to start but the update is essential. Also, the Stormwater Utility would like to warn the applicant of the new precipitation rates that may be adopted. I 3. Bruce Vogel of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. The City has primary electric located at the corner of East Harmony Road and County Road 9. There also is City electric to the corner of Timberline Road and County Road 36. The closest City electric services are approximately % mile to the north and the west. b. There will have to be lots of coordination between the City and the current electric service provider(s) if the City is to serve this development. C. Acquiring the necessary utility easements along County Road 9 may be . a problem. Please contact Bruce, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these comments. 4. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. There is an existing 12" water main in Corbett Drive, an existing 12" water main in County Road 9, and an existing 8" water main in Rock Creek Drive. b. There is an existing 30" sanitary sewer main along the north edge of this `site. C. This site is within the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District service areas; however, the developer is requesting that the City provide water service. If the District will not provide the service, the City will consider it provided the water main improvements are adequate to provide the necessary capacity and reliability consistent with other developments in the City distribution system. These improvements may include 12" water mains from the existing water main at the southeast corner of Wildwood Farms south to County road 36 and west to the western site boundary. d. A 30' easement will be required for the existing sanitary sewer on the north edge of the property. Access to this sewer must be provided in the layout of this development. (NOTE: This sewer is quite shallow and, therefore, not suitable to serve this site. Sewer service from the South Fort Collins Sanitation District is planned.) 2. Tim Blandford the Engineering Department offered the following comments: a. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is required with your Project Development Plan (PDP). This TIS must address all modes of transportation. Please contact Eric Bracket the City's Traffic - Engineer, at 224-6062 to schedule a "scoping" meeting. Also, Kathleen Reavis of the City's Transportation Planning Department should be contacted for information needed regarding bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes. She can be contacted at 224- 6140. b. The results of the TIS may change the City's classification'of some streets in the area. An example is that County Road 9 and County Road 36 are both shown as minor arterials on the Master Street Plan but may change based on impacts from this development. C. This development will be responsible for off -site street improvements to both County Road 9 and County Road 36, with a minimum 36' wide interim cross-section. =_ d. The interim and ultimate street design for necessary improvements to County Road 9 and County Road 36, for up to 1,000 feet beyond this project, must be included in the development proposal submittal: e. All internal streets must meet the City's street design standards. f. . The design of the proposed traffic circles will be looked at very closely during development review. g. Street oversizing fees will apply to this development. The fees of $901 per dwelling unit for the proposed townhomes (multi -family) and $1,480 for the single family residential will apply and will be collected at the time of issuance of building permits. These fees are based on vehicle trip generations by the development. Please contact Matt Baker, at 224-6108, for verification on the residential fees and information about the fees for other uses that may be included. h. The standard utility plan requirements must be submitted to the City for review and approval. Please contact Tim, at 221-6750, if you have questions about these comments. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS City of Fort Collins MEETING DATE: ITEM: APPLICANT: LAND USE DATA: August 31, 1998 Ruff/County Road 36 Properties Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. c/o Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, #105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Request for a mixed use development containing large and small lot single family residential, townhome multi -family residential, small park site, and a neighborhood center on a total of 162.5 acres located at the northwest corner of County Road 36 and County Road 9. This development request involves two adjacent properties (Ruff and H.H. Investment.Company), which are currently in, Larimer County. However, they both are being considered for annexation into the City with the requested zoning of LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. COMMENTS: 1. Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. These properties are in Larimer County but they are being considered for annexation, with the requested zoning of LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The proposed uses would fall into the administrative, Type I review process category unless any modifications to standards were needed. b. In the LMN Zoning District there must be a minimum of 3 housing types provided on a development plan that exceeds 45 acres in size [Section 4.4(D)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code (L TC)]. Section 4.4(D)(2)(c) defines the housing types that may be used to satisfy the requirement. Please contact Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 (970)221.6750 CURRENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT r Community Planning and Envirunmental gervices Current nning City of Fort Collins September 7, 1998 Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. c/o Eldon Ward 3555 Stanford Road, #105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Eldon, For your information, attached is a copy of the Staffs comments concerning the request for the Ruff/County Road 36 Properties, which was presented before the Conceptual Review Team on August 31, 1998. This is a request for a mixed use development containing large and small lot single family residential, townhome multi -family residential, small park site, and a neighborhood center on a total of 162.5 acres located at the northwest corner of County Road 36 and County Road 9. This development request involves two adjacent properties (Ruff and H.H. Investment Company), which are currently in Larimer County. However, they both are being considered for annexation into the City with the requested zoning of LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. The comments are offered informally by Staff to assist you in preparing the detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project. If you should have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in the review process, please feel free to call me at 221-6750. Sincerely, 4ievFe Olt Project Planner xc: Stormwater Utility/Glen Schlueter Streets/Eric Bracke File 281 [North College Avenue 0 P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 ti. LAM@@p� urban design, inc. 3. Light & Power requirements will be coordinated with development of this site. 4. The design of water and sewer utilities has been coordinated with the utility service providers. 5. Grading and drainage plans have been prepared according to the requirements of the Storm Drainage Utility. 6. The required Transportation Impact Analysis has been prepared by Matt Delich addresses the comments from Transportation Planning. 7. We will coordinate with Transfort, if needed, for placement of future bus shelters and/or bus stops. 8. The development has been planned taking the existing natural areas into consideration, based on the study completed by ENSR last fall. 9. Sage Creek is not adjacent to the Neighborhood Park in question. Standard neighborhood and community parkland fees for each residential unit will be paid as per City Policy. 10. This plan is consistent with the Fossil Creek Plan, except as needed to meet the concerns of Natural Resources limiting crossing of the existing drainage way to Corbett Drive only. Bicycle / pedestrian crossings have included with the Corbett Drive extension. 11. The applicant does not feel a neighborhood meeting is needed at this time. 12. The appropriate Development Review Fees accompany this application. 13. This development meets the requirements as set forth in the City's Land Use Code. We appreciate your assistance in the planning of this project. Please call if you need further information. Sincerely, Eldon Ward, Presi ent Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Jim Postle, the James Company Jim Allen -Morley, The Sear -Brown Group April 20, 1999 Steve Olt, Project Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Steve; co urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 FAX (970) 226-4196 E-mail: cityscap@frii.com The Sage Creek PDP is being submitted concurrently with this letter. Issues raised at the August 31, 1998, Conceptual Review are related to both this property and the adjacent property (now proposed as the Harvest Park PDP). Comments concerning the Sage Creek property have been addressed as follows: a. This property has been annexed and zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. b. There are a minimum of 3 housing types as per Sections 4.4(D)(2)(a) and 4.4(D)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code. Sage Creek includes two single family lot types, six-plex buildings, and alley served townhomes. 2. a. The required Transportation Impact Analysis has been prepared by Matt Delich b. County Road 9 and County Road 36 will remain as minor arterials. C. The developer will meet standard requirements for street improvements to both County Road 9 and County Road 36. Improvements to C.R. 9 north to the existing improvements adjacent to Wild Wood and Celestica - meeting the requirements for off -site road improvements - are being coordinated with other development in the area. d. The interim and ultimate street design for necessary improvements to County Road 9 and County Road 36, for up to 1,000 feet beyond this project, are included in the PDP utility plans. e. All internal streets are designed to meet the City's street design standards. f. The designs of the proposed traffic circles are consistent with those constructed at Stanton Creek and Ridgewood Hills. g. The developer understands that this development is responsible for the applicable Street Oversizing Fees. h. Utility plans meeting standard requirements are included in this submittal.