HomeMy WebLinkAboutPATEROS CREEK - PDP - PDP130011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWCommunity Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 ‑ fax
fcgov.com
January 10, 2012
Craig Russell
Russell + Mills Studios
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: 912 Wood Street
Description of project: This is a request for annexation of the property at 912 Wood Street and initial zoning
of Low Density Mixed‑Use Residential (L‑M‑N) as well as the redevelopment of the property to include 43
single family residential dwelling units on 16.82 acres. The structure plan designates this parcel to be zoned
Urban Estate (U‑E).
Please see the following summary of comments regarding the project request referrenced above. The
comments offered informally by staff during the Conceptual Review will 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 have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in
the review process, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project
Planner, Lindsay Ex, at 970‑224‑6143 or lex@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Zoning
Contact: Noah Beals, 970‑416‑2313, nbeals@fcgov.com
1. 4.5(D)(1)(a) The density minimum for residential development that is less than 20 acres in the LMN zone
district is 3 units per acre and max of 9 units per acre.
The project has been annexed within the Urban Estate Zone district. The gross density is shown at 2.34
DU/AC under a previously approved stand alone modification request with a maximum gross density of 2.4
DU/AC. The net density is shown at 5 DU/AC, meeting the standard for cluster developments within the UE
zone district.
2. 4.5(D)(6) A small neighborhood park shall be provided for projects of ten acres or greater. This park
shall be within an one‑third mile of 90% of the dwelling units. Rear facades or rear yards shall not abut
more than 2 sides or more than 50% of the perimeter of the frontage of the park. Park requires shall
consist of multiple‑use turf areas for various age groups to enjoy.
Two parks/open spaces are provided within the project site. One is the centrally located courtyard with
multi-purpose turf, gathering area with shade structure and community herb gardens. The second park
includes a playground amenity and pavilion/shelter within the open space area to the east of the residential
lots.
3. 4.5(E)(1)(b) Mid‑block pedestrian connections required for block faces over 700 ft in length.
Pedestrian access has been provided on the site.
4. 3.5.2(D) Front set back from property line is 15ft. Side set back from property line is 5ft. Rear set back
from property line is 5ft.
Please see modification request for a 10’ setback for porches from the R.O.W. for the interior courtyard
lots. Building face is proposed at a 15’ setback. Rationale and justification is included.
3.5.2(E) Street facing garage doors required to be recessed at least 4ft behind the front facade or a
porch measuring 6ft x 8ft.
All garages will be required to achieve this recess dimension at a minimum. All residences will include
porches per the design guidelines.
5. 3.5.2(D)(4) Minimum lot width is 50ft
All lots achieve a minimum 50ft width.
Department: Water‑Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Roger Buffington, 970‑221‑6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com
1. Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in the area include a 6‑inch water main in Wood Street and a
27‑inch sewer in an easement on the properties to the west and south.
2. The mobile home park obtains water through a 2‑inch service connecting to the main in Wood Street and
is on a septic system. The septic system must be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of
the Larimer County Environmental Health Department.
3. Any connections to the 27‑inch sewer must be at a manhole.
4. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these
requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards.
5. Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. Credit will be given for the established
account on the property.
Department: Transfort
Contact: Emma McArdle, 970‑224‑6197, emcardle@fcgov.com
1. No comments.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970‑224‑6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com
1. This site lies partially within the FEMA‑designated Poudre River 100‑year floodplain and floodway, the
Poudre River 500‑year floodplain, and the City‑designated West Vine floodway.
2. The alternatives do not show nor take into consideration the West Vine floodway. Several lots on each
plan would not be developable because these are located in the West Vine floodway. In the future, this
floodway may go away when an outfall for West Vine is constructed. These lots may be able to be
considered as a future phase.
3. All three alternatives involve placing new residential structures on fill that was placed in the floodplain
while in Larimer County jurisdiction. The Preferred Alternative involves the least fill. If the property had
already been in the City, filling via a LOMR‑Fill and then placing residential structures is prohibited by
Chapter 10 of City Code.
4. Residential structures are not allowed in the floodway (See comment #2 regarding the West Vine
floodway not being shown on the plans) or in the Poudre River flood fringe.
5. For any work (roads, grading, construction of trails, landscaping, community gardens, orchard, fences,
etc.) in the floodway you must be able to document no‑rise. A no‑rise certification form is required.
Fences must be designed to be break‑away.
6. Any work in the floodplain requires a floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee.
7. Concerns have been raised by City Leadership about the intent of Section 10‑80(2) and its application to
this situation where the differences between the City and County regulations make the LOMR‑Fill process
appear to be a deliberate attempt to avoid City regulations. A condition of annexation may be that no
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970‑224‑6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com
residential structures are placed on LOMR‑Fill areas. This should be discussed further relative to your
proposed site layouts.
8. In April 1999, significant erosion occurred on the right bank of the Poudre near the upstream end of the
property. Staff has significant concern about the potential for future erosion and the impact it may have
on homes that would be built in this area. Additional protections need to be incorporated to protect the
property from potential erosion. Previous discussions with the applicant included a wall around the
backs of the lots. Other options may also be appropriate.
9. Any structures that are permitted to be built on a LOMR‑Fill area that was filled while in the County, must
comply with the freeboard requirements such that the lowest floor elevation, HVAC, electrical, and
mechanical are elevated 2 ft. above the 100‑year flood elevation (Please also see comment #7
regarding LOMR‑Fill areas and new structures). In addition, for all other structures that are shown to be
out of the effective100‑year floodplain and not required to be elevated, staff recommends elevating these
structures to provide additional flood protection due to the close proximity to the river.
10. The Poudre River floodplain regulations are currently being reviewed. Any changes to the City Code
may be applicable to this development depending on the timing of the Code adoption and approval of
the development and building permit approvals.
11. Please see the attached 50% and 100% development review checklists for additional items needed on
the plans. All floodplain regulations can be found in Chapter 10 of City Code.
12. The floodplain use permit, no‑rise certification and development review checklists are available on our
website at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what‑we‑do/stormwater/flooding/forms‑documents
13. The floodplain Admin contact for this development is Marsha Hilmes‑Robinson,
mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com , 224‑6036.
14. A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and must be prepared by a
Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. There is a new requirement that standard operating
procedures (SOPs) for all onsite drainage facilities need to be prepared by the drainage engineer, and
there is a final site inspection required when the project is complete and maintenance is handed over to
an HOA or another maintenance organization.
15. Onsite detention is not required on this site as long as the outfall is sized to release the 100 year
developed runoff directly into the river. The outfall will need to be sensitive to the natural stream corridor
and be esthetically screened.
16. Water quality treatment is also required as described in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual,
Volume 3 ‑ Best Management Practices (BMPs).
(http://www.udfcd.org/downloads/down_critmanual_volIII.htm) Extended detention is the usual method
selected for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged.
17. The Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00/acre ($0.1467/sq.ft.) for new impervious area over
350 sq.‑ft., and there is a $1,045.00/acre ($0.024/sq.ft.) review fee. No fee is charged for existing
impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each building permit is issued. Information on
fees can be found on the City's web site at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders‑and‑developers/plant‑investment‑development‑fees or
by contacting Jean Pakech at 221‑ 6375. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the
Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by the design
engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area or erosion control measures shown on the site
construction plans.
18. The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Cache la Poudre River Master
Drainageway Plan as well the City's Design Criteria and Construction standards.
Department: Historical Preservation
Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970‑221‑6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com
1. If property is annexed, any remaining buildings will be subject to the demolition/alteration review process
per Municipal Code Section 14‑72.
2. Currently, historic preservation staff is working with applicant to mitigate existing historic preservation
issues.
Department: Fire Authority
Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970‑416‑2864, rgonzales@poudre‑fire.org
1. Addresses are required to be visible from the street fronting the property.
Addresses will be visible from the street for all residences.
2. Emergency access‑ Because there is only one way in and one way out, and bacause the distance
around exceeds 660 feet, a second point of access is required. This second point of access must be at
least 1/2 the longest diagonal apart from the main point of entry to be counted as a 2nd point of access.
If the second point of access cannot be provided, then all structures built beyond 660 feet from the main
point of access shall be fire sprinklered.
A secondary access has been provided along Wood St. as a 16’ paved fire lane, with break-away bollards.
This has been pre-approved by the PFA Fire Marshall.
3. Fire hydrants shall be spaced to be no further than 400 feet from any structure; and then on 800 foot
centers thereafter. The required volume for this commercial project is 1000 gpm @ 20 psi.
4. This property must go through a fire district exclusion and be annexed into the PFA.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970‑224‑6143, lex@fcgov.com
1. ECS ‑ An Ecological Characterization Study is required by Section 3.4.1 (D)(1) as the site is within 500
feet of a known natural habitat (Poudre River, Riparian Forest). Please note the buffer zone standards of
300' for the Poudre River, 50' buffer for riparian forests, and buffers for wetlands (>1/3 of an acre, the
buffer is 100'; <1/3 of an acre, the buffer is 50'), as outlined in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code.
An Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Report has been prepared and submitted to the City.
Updated project plan maps show the requested wetland and riparian area buffers.
2. Buffer Zones ‑ as the preferred alternative proposes to encroach into the standard, 300' buffer, please
include with your submittal a detailed description of how this project meets the performance standards
outlined in Section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use Code.
The ECS report describes how the project meets the Section 3.4.1 performance standards.
3. Wetlands ‑ One of the key concerns I have with the draft ECS is that it notes that "no wetland buffers are
required for this property since all wetlands are well under ¼ acre in size." There appears to be a conflict
with the Land Use Code between the section of Code cited in the ECS (Section 3.4.1(E)(d)) and Section
3.4.1(E) that includes the buffer zone table. In the buffer zone table, the metric is that wetlands less than
1/3 of an acre in size need a 50' buffer. With Land Use Code conflicts (see Section 1.7.2 of the Land Use
Code), if both code sections are equally specific (which these are), then the more stringent code
applies. In this case, that is the 50' buffer. In addition to this buffer, staff will need a wetland delineation of
all the project wetlands and a copy of any ACOE permits needed as a result of the proposed
development. The area where this is most concerning is likely the western, small wetland along the
southern boundary of the property; as the ECS notes, this area is also composed of a band of trees,
including cottonwood species.
Wording regarding the protection of wetlands has been revised in the ECS report. A wetland
delineation was completed for the property on January 10, 2012, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) approved the mapping in a January 12, 2012 letter submitted to the Applicant
(see revised ECS report). No ACOE permits will be required for impacts to the wetlands along the
southern property boundary since the total wetland impact would be less than 0.10 acre. A 50-foot
no development buffer will be maintained for all other wetlands. Significant trees along the south
property boundary will be retained or mitigated if removal is required. As described in the revised
ECS Report, loss of the very small and low quality wetlands along the southern property boundary
will be mitigated by the creation of a forebay wetland and by increased wetland development around
the perimeter of the expanded pond at the southeast property corner.
4. 80% Reference ‑ please remove the last sentence of the note on page 16 of the ECS that begins,
"Generally, a buffer standard less than 80 percent of the minimum distance..." This standard is no longer
in the Code.
The ECS Report has been revised to eliminate the 80% reference.
5. Noxious weeds ‑ While the ECS notes that restoration of a smooth brome dominated, non‑native
grassland is often prohibitive, the project should emphasize noxious weed control, e.g., the Canada
thistle noted in the ECS.
As indicated in the revised ECS Report, development of a weed management plan is
recommended and will be implemented as a component of the buffer zone enhancement and
planting plan.
6. Restoration ‑ In Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g) of the Land Use Code, the City has the ability to determine if the
existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. This
ECS does an excellent job of describing what restoration measures should be taken to comply with this
standard; staff concurs with the majority of the recommendations. We can discuss these measures in
more detail as the application proceeds.
Comment noted and the applicant will continue to closely coordinate with City staff regarding the
restoration of the buffer zone.
7. Significant Trees ‑ the ECS notes the numerous significant trees that have been documented on the site.
Please schedule a review of the trees with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221‑6361) to determine the
status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements that could result from the proposed
development. Note that female boxelder and cottonwood trees are considered significant when in the
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. In addition, staff concurs with the ECS that trees should be removed outside
of the songbird nesting season (April to July).
Trees on the property have been inventoried and the Applicant is in the process of obtaining a
contractor to complete a health and status evaluation for existing trees. Mapping of the project
area trees is provided in a separate document in the PDP submittal package.
8. Pets ‑ How do the applicants feel about the ECS recommendation regarding pets? Is the applicant
considering prohibiting cats from the development? How will domestic and wildlife species interactions
be minimized?
Homeowners will be obligated to keep their dogs on leash according to City law. The Applicant
has indicated that HOA rules will include a prohibition of free-roaming cats and dogs. Since
compliance to prohibition of free-roaming cats is difficult to enforce, HOA rules will also require all
outdoor cats to wear a bell to reduce the risk of cat predation on birds.
9. Visual Screening ‑ While the ECS recommends visually screening the development sites from important
habitat areas, let's consider a small number of visual openings to allow for residents to view into these
areas, especially where there is less habitat sensitivity.
Comment noted and the Applicant will continue to coordinate with City staff regarding the
restoration of the buffer zone, visual screening, and view corridors.
10. Fugitive Dust Control ‑ A Fugitive Dust Control Permit must be obtained from Larimer County
Environmental Health for development involving:
o Land clearing of 5‑25 acres;
o Land development creating more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance or exceeding 6 months in
duration.
Comment noted. A Fugitive Dust Control Permit will be obtained from Larimer County prior to any
ground disturbance involving 5 to 25 acres.
11. Fencing ‑ Attention will need to be paid to any proposed site fencing, so there is a balance between any
site privacy needs, the floodplain and floodways, aesthetics, and wildlife movement across the site.
Please see Section 3.4.1(E)(b) and 3.4.1(E)(i) of the Land Use Code.
The Applicant’s plans for fencing include a project perimeter rail type fence. Homeowners will
have the option of installing an open rail type fence around the perimeter of their backyard.
Pateros Creek Design Guidelines include detailed information regarding fencing. Both types of
fencing would not preclude wildlife movement.
12. Can Lois Rellergert (lrellergert@fcgov.com, 416.2059) be included on the discussions between the
applicant and the State of the issue of the septic system, e.g., documentation of decisions, required
steps, timing, and closure of septic system?
Yes, Lois Rellergert can be included on the discussions between the applicant and the State of
the issue of the septic system.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Lois Rellergert, ,
13. As per our conversation during conceptual review this morning, please provide a copy of the Phase I
with the PDP submittal.
A copy of Phase I will be provided with the PDP submittal.
14. Although it sounds like no asbestos was found in the Phase I assessment, in the final planning
documents, Regulatory and Governmental Affairs staff would like to discuss the possibility of including
language for the management and disposal of unexpected discovery of contamination, e.g., asbestos,
oil, etc. These are issues we can discuss further on in the review process, but would like to give you a
heads‑up about this now.
The Applicant is open to additional discussion during the review process regarding including
language in this regard.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970‑221‑6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
1. Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Street Oversizing Fees are due at the time of building permit.
Please contact Matt Baker at 224‑6108 if you have any questions.
2. The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of submittal. For additional
information on these fees, please see: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev‑review.php
3. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets, sidewalks,
curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of this project, shall be replaced
or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of
completed improvements and/or prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
4. Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224‑6062) to schedule a scoping meeting for the
traffic study for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as
well.
5. Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/UrbanSt.htm
6. This project is responsible for dedicating any right‑of‑way and easements that are necessary for this
project.
7. Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is
finalized.
8. A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site.
9. A utility coordination meeting on this site is suggested. Utility coordination meetings if requested are
typically scheduled after the preliminary submittal of the project, but can be scheduled prior to submittal
upon request. Please provide a site plan with preliminary utility layout for routing with the meeting notice.
If you are interested in having a utility coordination meeting, please contact the development review
engineer for scheduling.
10. My specific comments are on the Alternative C ‑ Preferred Plan. Comments on the other alternative may
and could be different.
11. Wood Street connecting out to this project will need to be improved and tied into the internal street
system in accordance with standards. Depending on the width of Wood Street at this location a knuckle
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970‑221‑6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com
at the 90 degree bend maynot be needed.
12. Lots 1‑3 are double frontage lots. Double frontage lots are not allowed per 3.3.1(B)(1) of the LUC.
Per previous discussions with City Engineering, a 20’ tract has been provided along Wood St. to
avoid addressing conflicts etc.
13. The plans do not show where the driveways are on the west side of Wood Street. This information is
needed as we need to look at street driveway off‑sets and will impact as to if the median shown in the
street entry will be allowed. Just a note regarding the median in the street entry. If allowed it will need to
be row and as such neighborhood sign (excepting those that meet City Code criteria) are not allowed.
The use of a median makes your local street really wide as the street will need to be a minimum of 28
feet on each side of the median.
Driveway locations are shown on the site plan.
14. Per 3.6.3(F) of the LUC all development plans shall provide for a future public street connection to
adjacent developable land. The parcel to the south has the potential for redevelopment.
Per previous discussions, a shared utility/pedestrian access tract is shown at two points as a
connection to the parcel to the south.
15. The 90 degree bends in the street will need to be designed with widened knuckles per standards.
16. The plan indicates that the patio home lots are 40x50. I do not know which way that these are oriented or
if the standard applies if the lots are not touching, but I believe that there is a standard in the code that
requires any lots that are less than 50 feet in width to have a rear private drive.
Department: Electric Engineering
Contact: Justin Fields, 970‑224‑6150, jfields@fcgov.com
1. Credit for the existing electric system will be applied to the project. The balance between this credit and
the charges for the new system will be due to Light and Power. Fifty percent of this balance will be due
before work will be schedule by Light and Power crews, and the remaining fifty percent is due before the
system will be energized. Contact Light and Power Engineering for an estimate of the balance of
development fees (970)221‑6700. Coordinate street lighting with Light and Power Engineering. Forty
feet of clearance must be maintained between large shade trees and street lights and fifteen feet of
clearance must be maintained between ornamental trees and street lights.
Department: Advance Planning
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970‑221‑6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
1. Regarding the zoning question: Clear direction is found in the Northwest Subarea Plan, for Urban Estate
land use designation. Map 1 on page 12 calls for Urban Estate, with clustering preferred in order to
minimize the extent of development and encourage creative site planning in reponse to resource values
along the river corridor. LMN designation would open up possibilities for inappropriate development
types and intensities for the river corridor as envisioned in City Plan and the related Northwest Subarea
Plan.
The project has been annexed within the Urban Estate Zone district.
Current Planning
Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970‑224‑6143, lex@fcgov.com
1. What was the thinking on requesting to be annexed within the LMN Zoning District? The City's Structure Plan
will need to be amended if proposing to be annexed under LMN.
The project has been annexed within the Urban Estate Zone district.
2. Is this project considered opting‑in to the Planned Development Overlay District? If so, the underlying
zoning of the UE or the LMN Districts would not apply, and thus, a modification would not be required.
However, please note that the PDOD schedule has been pushed back, and will not be before Council until
March. Please note that under PDOD, as currently proposed, the General Standards set forth in Article III
and the requirements associated with the Sustainability Matrix must be met.
The project has been annexed within the Urban Estate Zone district and will follow the UE standards in
Article 4 of the Land Use Code.
3. Annexation ‑ As the project is currently in Larimer County, the site will need to be annexed into the City.
Let's set up a separate meeting to establish the timeline, discuss the requirements for the annexation
process, and the extent to which the annexation/zoning and PDP can run concurrently. With the annexation
of McMurry Natural Area, this site has achieved the contiguity requirement set forth in Section 3.7.2 of the
Land Use Code.
The project has been annexed into the City of Fort Collins.
4. Street Trees ‑ Section 3.2.1(D)(2) of the Land Use Code requires street trees that are spaced between
30‑40'. As the project's stated goal is to maximize contiguity of the open space, having a tighter tree
canopy will maximize this contiguity and provide increased habitat opportunities for resident species.
Thus, please consider spacing your street trees at the lower end of this range, i.e., closer to 30' in spacing
than 40'. Also, we’d like to talk with the Forestry Department and you about choosing street trees that will
maximize the site’s habitat value. Viewing the entire site as potential habitat and designing the site
accordingly will help to meet the performance standards set forth in 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, further
described in the Environmental Planning comments. In addition, if bioswales are planned within the park
strip, please coordinate between stormwater and planning to ensure these street tree standards are met
without compromising the stormwater functions of the swales.
Street trees have been reviewed for their habitat value and placed more closely to 30’ than 40’.
5. Connectivity ‑ As you will see in Parks comments, a public trail connection should be made from the site
(we've discussed along Wood Street in prior conversations) to the Poudre River Trail. In addition, several,
mid‑block connections, e.g., through the center of the northern residential units, should be provided so all
residents have a desirable access to the River. Additional connections have been provided to the internal,
residential open space, though again, no mid‑block connections have been provided. Let's continue to
explore how we can get maximum connectivity across the site. See also Section 3.4.1(M) of the Land Use
Code for additional access requirements.
Trail connections have been provided to the open space area/Poudre River Trail at the eastern and
southeastern edges of the residential lots.
6. Access, Circulation, and Parking ‑ How will you provide enhanced pedestrian crossings across the site,
e.g., different paving techniques to enter into the central green? See Section 3.2.2(C)(5) of the Land Use
Code.
Enhanced pedestrian connections have been provided within bulbouts at the eastern portion and entry
area. There are 6 pedestrian connections shown into the central courtyard as well. These will be delineated
with native plantings.
7. Parking Requirements ‑ For each single‑family dwelling , there shall be one parking space on lots with
greater than 40' of street frontage and 2 parking spaces for this with 40' or less of frontage. See Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(c) of the Land Use Code.
These parking requirements are met on the plan.
8. Lighting Plan ‑ What are your thoughts on lighting for the project? As several site amenities are proposed
within the Buffer Zone in the preferred alternative, lighting in this area (and the entire project site, given the
proximity to the premier migratory bird corridor in the City) will be a key element for this project.
There are currently no additional lights beyond street lights anticipated within the project, to remain
sensitive to the Poudre River context. Minimal and full cut-off lighting will be required for all residences in
the project design guidelines.
9. Trash and recycling ‑ how will waste be handled within the central green and Natural Habitat Buffer Zone
areas? Please consider trash, recycling, compost, and doggie waste stations.
Trash, recycling and doggie waste stations will be provided within all open spaces and will be shown on the
FDP.
10. Compatibility with surrounding areas ‑ When considering architectural standards for the project, keep in
mind the requirements of 3.4.1(I)(1) that requires projects in the vicinity of the Poudre River to be designed
to complement the visual context of the natural habitat. The code states, "Techniques such as architectural
design, site design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and building materials shall be
utilized in such manner that scenic views across or through the site are protected, and manmade facilities
are screened from off‑site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the area." For example,
the project must avoid bright colors, materials that cause glare, etc.
Native landscaping is proposed within all public ROW’s and tracts, aside from turf/lawn areas. The project
design guidelines will be in keeping with the above statement.
11. Housing Model Variety ‑ Note 3.5.2(B) of the Land Use Code, which requires 3 different types of housing
products for developments with fewer than 100 units. Note that each housing model shall have at least
three (3) characteristics which clearly and obviously distinguish it from the other housing models, including
different floor plans, exterior materials, roof lines, garage placement, placement of the footprint on the lot,
and/or building face.
All homes will be custom designed, with the design guidelines providing additional assurance in meeting
this variation.
12. Setbacks ‑ Because of the clustering of residential units within the UE District, the setbacks the building
setbacks, lot width, and lot size requirements conform to 3.5.2(D) of the Land Use Code (see Section
4.2(E)(2)(d) for this code detail). Note that the residential building minimum setback is 15' for the home and
setbacks from garage doors to the nearest portion of any public sidewalk that intersects with the driveway
is at least 20'. Note that the front setbacks for corner lots are only measured on the street to which the
primary entrance faces (Section 3.8.19(C) of the Land Use Code).
Please see modification request for a 10’ setback for porches from the R.O.W. for the interior courtyard
lots. Building face is proposed at a 15’ setback. Rationale and justification is included.
13. Minimum Lot Width ‑ a minimum lot width of 50' is required. Do all of the units meet this?
All lots meet the minimum 50’ width.
14. Clustering of Residential Units ‑ In the UE District, if you cluster the residential units, then a minimum of 50%
open space is required; the preferred alternative meets this requirement per Land Use Code section 4.2.
(E)(2).
The site exceeds the required 50% open space requirement.
15. Adjacent landowners ‑ have you concerned how to work with the stable/horse boarding facility to allow
horses to gain access to the trail? One option would be to provide a crusher fines trail along the north
boundary of the property. Also, are you considering allowing those horse users to traverse through the
internal project trails?
A crusher fines trail is proposed within the project property at the northwest corner of the site for access to
the Poudre River Trail.
16. Type II Review ‑ If proceeding with a cluster plan, this project will be processed as a Type II review, and
a neighborhood meeting will be required. Please also note that an expanded notification area shall be
required to include more of the neighbors to the south of the project.
A neighborhood meeting has been conducted.
17. As an overall comment, staff appreciates the thoroughness of the submittal provided by the applicant. The
planning criteria/objectives matrix is helpful in the review process, though please note that some of the
alternatives outlined in the notes column do not exist within the matrix or the submittal, e.g., Alternative D.
18. Modifications ‑ regarding the need for modifications, please note that modifications can be processed
separately from the PDP submittal. They would still need to occur after annexation and would be
processed as a Type II review, assuming the project is annexed in the UE District.
19. Gardens and Orchards ‑ what is the plan for long‑term maintenance of these features? Will the orchard
trees be caged until they reach a certain maturity to prevent deer from consuming them? Also, as Courtney
mentioned this morning, let's consider a water connection and spicket for the community garden. Also,
please Contact Susie Gordon, 221‑6265, sgordon@fcgov.com, regarding implementation, incentives and
financial assistance providing composting facilities for this project.
The gardens and orchards will be maintained by the HOA.
20. Staff is also providing the applicants with a letter from Gary Wockner, indicating his comments on the
project.
Pre‑Submittal Meetings for Building Permits
Pre‑Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the
design, that the new commercial or multi‑family projects are on track to complying with all of the
adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to
mid‑design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current
Planning conceptual review meeting.
Applicants of new commercial or multi‑family projects are advised to call 416‑2341 to schedule a
pre‑submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and
elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of
construction being proposed.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2009 International Building Code (IBC)
2009 International Residential Code (IRC)
2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9‑5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1‑2003.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 100‑ MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Use
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chapter 4
2. Multi‑family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4.
3. Commercial and Multi‑family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5.
Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1‑1‑2012. A copy of these requirements
can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number.
City of Fort Collins
Building Services
Plan Review
416‑2341