Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAGE CREEK - FDP - 25-98C - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS5-05-2000 12:37PM FROM CITYSCAPE 970 226 4196 P_1 Post-ir Fax Note /671 Date'5,-s ° ,, i To O 1= From CoAOepL .�� O°- r Phone . Phone a Fax a Fax* ]) In order to meet setbacks without encroaching into side yard drainage easern I to provide the additional street right-of-way requested by Engineering, .to keep driveways from contllcung v�ntn ine requlrea relocation of Crosswalks at the trathe circle, and to provide the desired quality of architecture (Including recessed garage doors, etc.), slightly wider lots in blocks 6, 7, and 8 are required. Although resulting in a slight (2%) reduction in density, the Plan continues to meet LUC requirements for density, housing types diversification, and residential building standards; and is in substantial conformance with the approved POP. k) Gross an Net density calculations have been corrected. Correct numbers are 3.95 en and 5.91 respectively. 1) The legend continues to be included near the upper tight comer of sheets 2 and 3. 0� 4P RL ' < CITY h QV �'u�rr --- ---� t.IMITS . gr �1 } PROJEC Oro SITE h COUNTY ROAD 3e 0 6�44 � Ko .;� 41 ` ld rX 0�`]J�f �. THIS FINAL COMPLIANCE PLAN IS IN eU & — B TAN7IAL COMPLIANCE wl H THE APPROVED pop. MINOR CHANGES MADE TO THE APPROVED PDP ARE; • A 2.2% DECREASE (5 LOTS) TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: RESULTING IN A DECREASE IN DENSITY FROM 6.0 D.UJAC. TO 5.5 D,UUAC. • REFINEMENTS IN LANDSCAPE PLANS PHASING CLARIFICATIONS PER CONDITIONS OF PDP APPROVAL: 1.) THIS PLAN COMPLIES TO THE APPROVED ALTERNATIVE COI"1PLIANCE TO L U.C. 3163. 2.) ALL NOTES AND CONDITIONS ON THE APPROVED (4120/55) PDP, INCLUDING THE LIGWTING PLAN AND PLAT, ARE MET WITH THIS PLAN. 3J RESIDENTIAL ELEVATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH L.U.C. 3.5 'BUILDING STANDARDS,. TYPICAL ELEVATIONS ARE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING STAFF PROIf2 rp ISSUANCE OF I5U1LDING PERMITS. 4J RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS SHALL CONFORM TO L.U.C. 3.52(D) y- COn@@ o urban design, inc. Please call if you need further information. Also please let us know the schedule for submittal of mylars and completion of the Development Agreement. Sincerely, Eldon ard' res� Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 4 cc: Jim Postle, the James Company Les Crawford, The Sear -Brown Group QM@@P@p urban design, inc. i) Unlike the PDP, Final Compliance Plans do not require a context diagram. Therefore that sheet has been eliminated. Otherwise, the format of the Final Compliance Plans has not changed from the PDP. j) In order to meet setbacks without encroaching into side yard drainage easements, to provide the additional street right-of-way requested by Engineering, to keep driveways from conflicting with the required relocation of crosswalks at the traffic circle, and to provide the desired quality of architecture (including porches, recessed garage doors, etc.), slightly wider lots in blocks 6, 7, and 8 are required. Although resulting in a slight (2%) reduction in density (from 6.0 to 5.9 d.u. ac.), the Plan continues to meet LUC requirements for density, housing types diversification, and residential building standards; and is in substantial conformance with the approved PDP. k) Gross and Net density calculations have been checked. Correct numbers are 3.95 and 5.91 respectively. 1) The legend continues to be included near the upper right corner of sheets 2 and 3. m) The Lighting Plan was submitted and approved with the PDP (See PDP "Decision" #2), and is not a requirement of Final Compliance Plans. An additional copy is attached for your reference. n) Easements, open areas, streets, walks, pedestrian crossing, and other site plan elements are all consistent with the approved PDP and have been coordinated with the affected review agencies. o) As per the decision of the Hearings Officer based on the February 2e hearing, these Final Compliance Plans are in substantial conformance with the approved PDP, and — as noted on sheet 1 - meet the four conditions of approval. p) Given the minor nature of the corrections to these plans, and the lack of outstanding issues, there seems to be no valid reason to require another full round of review. The revised plans should be able to be quickly checked for compliance, and mylars submitted, signed and filed. 13. Engineering comments are addressed on Sear -Brown's revised plans. The sight distance easement language is included on the Final Site and landscape plans as requested. 14. Traffic Operations comments are addressed on Sear -Brown's revised plans. 15. Stormwater comments are addressed on Sear -Brown's revised plans. 16. Mapping/Drafting comments are addressed on Sear -Brown's revised plans. cd�n@@P(A� urban design, inc. 11. Zoning 1. The previous application had removed the topo lines from the final landscape plans. With this revision, we have removed the topo lines from the site plans as well. 2. 3. The missing HC ramps in block 12 have been added. 4. The previous application indicated a bike rack near the east entry to the office - daycare building (it's the small rectangle labeled "bike rack"). With this revision, we have added another bike rack at the west entry. 5. HC ramps have been noted at the drive entrances to the office/day care parking area. 6. HC ramps are now all keyed to the "R" symbol. 7. Sear -Brown assures me that they have now added the typical detail indicating the areas of all the townhome lots (identical to the approach used at Wild Wood Townhomes and Stanton Creek). 8. 9. As requested landscape note #17 has been deleted. Street tree installation will be included as a covenant requirement as suggested. 10. The building envelope at the neighborhood center has been clarified and additional dimensions provided. 11. A landscape phasing plan (indicting fewer phases as discussed with Peter) for the townhome areas has been added to the plan as requested. All references to "multi -family" have been deleted. 12. Planning a) Minor changes made between the PDP and Final Compliance Plans are noted in General Note #7 on Sheet 1 of 8. b) The signature block has been corrected. c) Single-family elevations, consistent with those provided at the PDP Hearing, are being -provided under separate cover by the applicant. Please recall that during the PDP review it was a requirement of Zoning that the single-family elevations be ruled by LUC requirements, and that single-family elevations should not be part of the required PDP or Final Compliance Plan sets. d) The 15' utility easement is now more clearly shown. e) Labels for tract designations have been better placed on the revised plans. f) The typical detail on sheet 7 indicates general criteria for street trees, and residential setbacks as required by the LUC (as per the Hearing Officer's condition of PDP approval). This detail is "generic" and has been reconciled with the overall site plans. g) As requested, a drawing index has been added to sheet 1. h) As with the approved PDP - and as indicated in the legends on sheets 1, 2, and 3 — the M symbol indicates the location of model homes. 11 - May 9, 2000 Ronald G. Fuchs, Project Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Ron; Co72@caa o urban design, inc. 3555 Stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 FAX (970) 226-4196 E-mail: cityscap@frii.com Attached are the requested copies of the Sage Creek Final Compliance Plans, revised in response to the April 121h Staff Comments and our subsequent discussions. We understand that the Final Compliance review is to confirm compliance with the PDP, not to reconsider PDP comments, or to bring up new issues. The revisions needed have been minor in nature; and the Final Compliance Plans are in substantial conformance with the approved PDP. There appears to be no need for another full round of review. Specific comments from your April 12th letter are addressed as follows: 1. Building Inspection a) Building Inspection comments relate to requirements for issuance of building permits rather than the Final Compliance plans. These comments have been forwarded to the developer/builder. b) Some comments seem to be based on a review of the townhome (single family attached) units as if they were multi -family units instead. It was clearly determined at PDP that these are not multi -family units. 2. Gene Fisher commented that this plan, "Has no effect on ditch." 3. Natural Resources comments are new, and should have been made with the PDP. The applicant, however has provided the "Wetland Mitigation Plan" as requested. 4. Park Planning indicted they had no comments. 5. Water Conservation indicted they had no comments. 6. Sear -Brown is noting the fire lanes as "emergency access easements" on the final plat as requested by Poudre Fire Authority. 7. The Post Office comment pertains to Harvest Park, not Sage Creek. 8. Streets, Transportation Planning, and Engineering Pavement indicted they had no comments. 9. Advance Planning indicted they had no comments. 10. Public Service a) While fences or other structures cannot encumber rights -of -way, homeowners are allowed to place fences within utility easements. The area in question is an easement. Fencing as shown is consistent with the approved PDP. b) The plat and plans have been clarified to indicate that TCI is one of the users of the utility easement in question; and does not have an exclusive 12' easement.