Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE, 4TH FILING - PDP - 32-95G - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)- •r Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Steve Olt Project Planner xc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Utility Light & Power Poudre Fire Authority Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Natural Resources Advance Planning Thompson School District R2-J DALCO LAND, LLC Northern Engineering Sear -Brown Project File #32-95G N.. 28. A drainage swale is needed between Lots 10 and 11. A cross-section of the swale is needed. Planning 29. Does Poudre Fire Authority have problems with this development proposal? The layout would appear to present some concerns from an emergency access and addressing standpoint. 30. The proposed duplex units and the density is good, but the layout of the development does not meet the intent or purpose of the LUC. The orientation of the buildings, emphasizing the driveways and garages without good unit fronts, and the lack of pedestrian connections to walkways and streets does not satisfy several sections of the LUC. 31. The building/ architectural information provided would suggest that there is one building footprint and a lack of building architecture/model variety. 32. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments could be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the new development review process and schedule there is a 90-day plan revision resubmittal time -frame (from the applicant to the City) mandated by the City. The 90-day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (December 7, 2000) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case, a resubmittal must be made no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 2001. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to a public hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. 19. Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 20. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review meeting on November 29, 2000: Engineering (Marc Virata) 21. Bataan Drive does not meet the City's street standards. The applicant has submitted a variance but staff has determined that there is not sufficient justification to approve the variance. 22. The proposed alleys are not acceptable as alleys. They should be private drives or residential streets. The internal drive/street connection between the two sides of Bataan Drive should be terminated from both directions so that a through connection is not made. This will eliminate pass through traffic. 23. There are significant concerns about the orientation of the dwelling units. It is important as to how the orientation affects the nature of the streets and the pedestrian connectivity to streets and walks. 24. This development cannot have storm drainage going into the streets. Transportation Planning (Kathleen Reavis) 25. There should be a trail connection from this development south to the trail in the Registry Ridge, Third Filing. Stormwater Utility (Basil Hamdan) 26. The whole detention scheme is modeled under the City's "old" rainfall criteria. All of the area that drains into the detention pond must be modeled under the "new" criteria, which may necessitate an increase in the size of the pond. 27. Water quality must be provided on -site. The pond is currently designed without water quality. * City staff acknowledges that the fundamental problem appears to be units designed without real consideration of the Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan. The plan has garages and driveways dominating what would be considered the "front" of the unit in other jurisdictions. * City staff recommends that the architect design buildings with more of a logical front relationship to adjoining streets, and a primary entrance on the front facades, in response to local standards. Staff has a very similar precedent on another local development which could be shared with the applicant if they wish to meet and discuss it. * While a more detailed design is being done, could there be any variation among the fronts and entrances to add individuality and reduce the barracks characteristics of monotonous repetition? Section 3.5.2(B)(2) sets forth the requirement for characteristics to distinguish at least 3 housing models. * Also, while there is no specific LUC language requiring color variation among repeated buildings, staff asks that this be done creatively through private initiative. Please contact Clark, at 221-6225, if you have questions about these comments. 17. Ward Stanford of Traffic Operations offered the following comments: a. Provide a detail of the roundabout striping at the intersection with Bataan Drive. b. A crosswalk is needed at the roundabout intersection with Bataan Drive. C. "No Parking" signage and curb painting must be provided within 50' of the roundabout. Please contact Ward, at 221-6820, if you have questions about these comments. 18. Beth Sowder of the Streets Department has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. keep in mind the special exiting requirements of Section 310.4. Please contact Rick, at 221-6760, if you have questions about his comments. 14. Representatives of the Mapping/Drafting Department offered the following comments: a. The curve table and the legal description do not match the subdivision map. Closure = 1:29000, but not sure to use the map or the legal. b. The location of the northeast corner of Section 15 is shown wrong. It appears to be on the right-of-way, not the centerline of south Shields Street. C. The name in the legal description does not match the name on the subdivision plat. d. There are two intersections with the same name. Is this all right with E-911? e. Are radii needed at the two aforementioned intersections? Please contact Jim Hoff, at 221-6588, or Wally Muscott, at 221-6605, if you have questions about their comments. 15. Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, stated that she has no comments at this time regarding the City's irrigation and water conservation standards. She apparently did not receive a Landscape Plan with the initial routing. Please contact her, at 221-6877, to discuss the project's landscape intent. 16. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department stated that the buildings need more design attention, specifically: Sections 3.5.1(D) - Building Orientation and 3.5.1(E) - Privacy Considerations. * The buildings have an awkward relationship to the streets. They have two "back sides", with no real fronts in the sense of a front entrance and sidewalk leading to the street, and no marked transition from public to private space. b. Remove the Building Envelopes from the Site Plan (Sheet 3 of 6). Replace them with the lot lines since each building is on its own lot. The setbacks as set forth in Section 3.5.2(D) of the LUC apply to the setback distance for "lot lines". If the developer and/or applicant do not plan on complying with the setbacks, which appears to be the case, then they must submit a modification request and go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. Please contact Peter, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 7. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments may be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 8. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments may be found on red -lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Donald, at 416-2053, if you have questions about his comments. 9. A copy of the comments received from Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about her comments. 10. Rick Richter of the Engineering Pavement Department has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 11. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 12. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Broadband (cable television) has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 13. Rick Lee of the Building Inspection Department has provided a list of the various codes that the Fort Collins Building Department will enforce (attached). From the brief information provided, the Uniform Building Code will consider the duplex as an R-3 occupancy. It is important to 4. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 800' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,000 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. A fire hydrant must be within 400' of a structure. b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on a brown brick are not acceptable). NOTE: Buildings 1 - 3 and 16 - 20 shall be addressed off of Bon Homme Richard Drive. Buildings 6 - 12, 14, 21, and 22 shall be addressed off of the "Local Residential" street. Buildings 4, 5, 13, and 15 do not front on a street and can not be approved as submitted. C. Street names shall be reviewed and verified by L.E.T.A. prior to being put in service. NOTE: When a street has a change of direction it shall not have the same name (Bataan Drive). d. Alleys are allowed only when the principal structure is on a narrow residential local street. Bataan Drive is not a narrow residential local street. Please contact Michael, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Doug Moore of the City's Natural Resources Department has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 6. Peter Barnes of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. At least 3 different housing models are required, as set forth in Section 3.5.2(B) of the LUC. Based on the information provided, this requirement does not appear to met. Commur Planning and Environmental S 'ices Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins December 7, 2000 VF Ripley Associates, Inc. c/o Rachel Linder 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Dear Rachel, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Registry Ridge, Fourth Filing — Projeet Development Plan (PDP) that was submitted to the City on September 13, 2000, and would like to offer the following comments: Gary Huett of Public Service Company (Excel Energies) stated that the utility easements as proposed are inadequate. 2. Terry Farrill of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District stated that the Districts have reviewed the project and have no comments at this time. The preliminary drawings are not of adequate detail to provide any significant comments. The general layout appears to be satisfactory. Please contact Terry, at 226- 3104 - ext. 14, if you have any questions about his comments. 3. A copy of the Thompson School District R2-J Development Impact Report that was received from Kate Browne of the Thompson School District R2-J is attached to this comment letter. In summary, this development could cause district enrollment to exceed service level C (Extended Utilization). The proposed 44 dwelling units are within the current attendance boundaries of Centennial Elementary School, Lucile Erwin Middle School, and Loveland High School. Centennial Elementary School is currently at service level A and is expected to move into (and may exceed) service level C during the next 5 years. Lucile Erwin Middle School is currently at and is expected to remain at service level A for the next 5 years. Loveland High School is currently at and is expected to remain at service level C for the next 5 years. This area is expected to experience some of the highest growth in the District during the next 5 years. 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020