Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD THIRD FILING - PDP - PDP130037 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWland planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement November 6, 2013 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Waterfield Preliminary Design Review, PDR130004, Round Number Please see the following responses to the comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter. Responses is Red are from Ripley Design Responses in Blue are from Northern Engineering Responses in Green are from Cedar Creek Associates Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013 05/08/2013: There are a number of lots that back onto a future arterial (New Vine and Timberline). These lots need to be 150 feet in depth or, if not, need to be significantly buffered from the sound and visual effects of associated with a four-lane arterial traffic. The area between the rear property line and public right-of-way should be carefully planned for landscaping, berming or any combination to mitigate the impacts of traffic. In addition, plat notes and site plan notes must be added stating that lots may not take any access onto the adjoining arterial. Response: The lots proposed are 115’ deep however there is a 35’ open space buffer between the arterial street and the lots. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013 05/08/2013: If there are to be fences along the two arterials, then such fences must conform to the design standards of Section 3.8.11 which calls for quality materials and articulation. Response: Please see the site plan for fence details. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013 05/08/2013: In the northwest corner, between Lots 22 and 23, a bike / pedestrian path should be provided that links to the Community Trail along the ditch and provides a direct path to the future school. Response: The road alignments have modified so that this area is a through street. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013 Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 15 Page 2 of 15 05/08/2013: A buffer yard should be provided behind Lots 82 - 88 to establish a transition between the single family and future multi-family. Landscaping should be planted in the first phase so as to establish maturity. Response: Please see the landscape plan which shows this buffer. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013 05/08/2013: Similarly, the multi-family project will be required to provide a minimum 25-foot wide buffer yard along their west edge adjoining the single family. Since the submittal materials indicate a potential of 24 dwelling units per acre, this generally means three-story buildings which will need to comply with Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility and Land Use Transition. Staff recommends a buffer yard be indicated on the O.D.P. to emphasize the importance mitigating the impacts associated with multi-family in close proximity to single family. Response: The ODP has shown this buffer area. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013 05/08/2013: At the time of submittal for an O.D.P., a context diagram needs to be provided showing how the site fits into and relates to the larger surrounding area. Presently, the plan is shown in isolation. Response: A vicinity map has been provided on the cover sheet of the ODP submittal dated July 31st, 2013 to provide context. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/13/2013 05/13/2013: Staff is willing to support a Request for Modification to Section 4.5(D)(2)(a) – L-M-N zone, Mix of Housing, to allow only three housing types versus four subject to meeting the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(1). This requires that the L-M-N portion of Waterfield, as proposed, be equal to or better than a plan which otherwise would meet the standard. Staff recommends that a Request for Modification be accompanied by a comparison with other approved L-M-N neighborhoods that illustrates where Waterfield, as proposed, would rank when compared by housing mix. Other approved plans to consider by way of comparison would be Dry Creek, Linden Park, Maple Hill/Lind Property, Observatory Village, Harvest Park/Sage Creek, Stanton Creek, Registry Ridge, East Ridge, Trailhead/Waterglen. If it can be shown that Waterfield is equal to or better than existing approved plans, then that speaks to supporting the Request for Modification per the applicable standard. In terms of submitting the data for Waterfield, you may want to consider showing Waterfield without the M-M-N data and Waterfield with the M-M-N data. Response: An analysis of comparable plans has been completed. Please refer to the modification request for more information. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: 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. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 3 of 15 Page 3 of 15 05/03/2013: 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 Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: 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. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Please contact the City's Traffic Engineer, Joe Olson (224-6062) to schedule a scoping meeting and determine if a traffic study is needed for this project. In addition, please contact Transportation Planning for their requirements as well. Response: The full traffic study is attached with this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: 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 Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Utility plans will be required and a Development Agreement will be recorded once the project is finalized. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: The intersection of New Vine Drive and existing Timberline is not the ultimate intersection for New Vine Drive and Timberline. Additional discussions are needed to determine what improvements will be required with this project for the interim intersection of New Vine and existing Timberline. Response: Discussions have been started regarding the limits of improvement along Timberline Road and the Intersections of Timberline and New Vine. Detailed design and limits of interim construction will be detailed at the time of PDP submittal. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: The access proposed onto Timberline North of New Vine Drive will be a restricted access which is most likely a right-in, right-out only. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 4 of 15 Page 4 of 15 05/03/2013: The site plan shows 2 Pedestrian crossings of New Vine Drive near the west side of the plan. These crossings should be removed and pedestrians will need to cross the arterial New Vine at intersections. Response: Acknowledged. The pedestrian crossings will occur at intersections Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: New Vine Drive will need to be designed and constructed from the intersection of New Vine and Turnberry to Timberline. Construction includes the full 4 lane arterial width, medians, landscaping, etc. Preliminary design is required 1000' past each of these limits. Please refer to "East Vine Drive Relocation Alternative Option 2" for additional information. Right of Way will need to be dedicated for a 4-lane arterial as a part of this project. New Vine will be eligible for Street Oversizing reimbursement for the portions oversized compated to a local residential. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: The site plan shows Merganser Drive intersecting New Vine Drive perpendicularly. Merganser exists with a curve, is it the intent to realign Merganser so that it intersects perpendicularly? As it exists today Merganser would probably intersect at a greater angle than our standards allow. Verify the distance between Merganser and the ultimate intersection of Timberline for considerations of restricted access or not. Response: The new alignment of Merganser will be shown on the PDP submittal and will intersect New Vine perpendicularly. It has been determined that it can be full access intersection. Please refer to traffic study. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Refer to East Ridge Street Plan and Profile sheets 153, 154 and 155 prepared by TST, Consulting Engineers for preliminary alignment of Timberline Road and Ultimate location of New Vine and Timberline intersection. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: Additional Right of Way from the adjacent property owner to the west may be required for the construction of Turnberry Road. If additional Right of Way is required please provide a letter of intent/understanding from the adjacent property owner prior to public hearing. This project could also choose to dedicate the additional right of way on its own property at Turnberry is not required to straddle the section line. Response: Turnberry currently has 56’ of ROW on this property and is anticipated to be a local street. It will begin at New Vine and terminate at Conifer. The design will occur at the time of the future PDP as the park and school develop. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: Right of Way vacations will need to occur for the existing Right of Way within the Waterfield P.U.D. These takes 2 readings at Council to complete and the first reading will not occur until this PDP has been approved at Public Hearing. Right of Way along Old Vine may also be vacated to the appropriate width of its collector classification. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: In all cases this project needs to conform with the 660 feet Street Pattern and Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 5 of 15 Page 5 of 15 Connectivity Standards as shown in section 3.6.3 in the Land Use Code. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: An ECS for the project was submitted in January of 2013. The ECS reports that the main significant natural resource is the 8.46 acre, non-jurisdictional wetland in the western portion of the site. The canal to the northern boundary of the property is also discussed in the ECS. The ECS does note that observation of wildlife use on the site were limited due to the timing of the survey. Staff recommends a second site visit to assess how wildlife are utilizing the site during this time of year, which will help guide the design discussions for the wetland area. Response: Acknowledged. This information has been provided in a new report. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Regarding the request for mitigation within the southeast portion of the wetland to be mitigated by enhancing the ecological value of the remaining 8.1 acres of the wetland, staff is open to this suggestion but needs more data to determine if we can be supportive of it. For example, the site visit mentioned above to reevaluate the value of these wetlands is critical. RESPONSE: The request for enhancing the existing wetlands is no longer applicable. Further studies have indicated that groundwater levels are too deep to be used for wetland enhancement or re- establishment. There is also evidence that the wetland is declining because of reductions in surface water recharge from irrigation or natural levels of precipitation. Answers to the following questions would also be helpful: -What species would be expected to utilize the site if it were enhanced as suggested versus creating an additional 0.4 acres of similar habitat as that proposed to be lost versus applying the 100' buffer? RESPONSE: The request for enhancing the existing wetlands is no longer applicable. -What criteria will be most appropriate for evaluating project success? RESPONSE: The request for enhancing the existing wetlands is no longer applicable. -Does the groundwater in the wetland support such a plan? RESPONSE: No -What is the long-term management plan for the wetland to ensure the expected diversity and value of the wetland is maintained? -Does the developer have the water rights to expand the open water portion of the wetland? RESPONSE: No and there are no longer plans to enhance the open water portion of the wetland. Just for the record, there was never a plan to expand the open water portion, only to deepen portions of the existing open water area, which would not require additional water rights -How does the wetland drain? Does it drain to the southeast where lots 6-10 drain? RESPONSE: The wetland is within a closed basin and does not drain. -How does creating the opportunity of open water affect the broader area, e.g., is this type of open water beneficial in this area? Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 6 of 15 Page 6 of 15 RESPONSE: The request for enhancing the open water portion of the wetlands is no longer applicable. -If migratory waterfowl will be attracted to this pond after restoration, and the buffer standard for wetlands serving migratory waterfowl is 300', should the distance between the proposed open water area and the back of the proposed lots be 300'? RESPONSE: The request for enhancing the open water portion of the wetlands is no longer applicable. Under current conditions, it appears the pond/mudflat area may no longer support open water areas to attract migratory waterfowl. -Should more distance be created between the back of the lots and the wetland to prevent future conflicts? RESPONSE: The request for enhancing the open water portion of the wetlands is no longer applicable. Under current conditions, it appears the pond/mudflat area may no longer support open water areas to attract migratory waterfowl. -Please also have the revised ECS address how the wetland/pond serving for water quantity/detention purposes (not for water quality) will affect the goals for this wetland? RESPONSE: Based on the fact that the current wetland conditions appear to be declining from reduced levels of surface water, any plans to use the pond/mudflat area and adjacent wetlands for water detention should help to maintain the wetland and possibly reverse the current trend of wetland decline. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Looking down the road, please include a note on the tree mitigation plan or landscape plan, as appropriate, that requires a tree removal to occur outside of the migratory songbird nesting season (February 1-July 31), or that a survey be conducted prior to removal to ensure no active nests in the area. Response: Acknowledged. The note has been added on the mitigation plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Please note that, contrary to the PDR narrative, the buffer zone for the canal is 50'. However, more buffer zone adjacent to a canal will increase the value of the canal as a wildlife corridor and is recommended. In addition, the PDP will need to identify how it will improve the buffer zone within the canal (please coordinate with the ditch company) to meet Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g). Response: Within the canal buffer zone there will be enhanced native plantings providing a wildlife corridor between the multi-use path and ditch. Diverse plantings will provide habitat which currently does not exist. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: It is staff's understanding that Natural Areas is not interested in participating in the wetland's protection on the site, even with the redesign of the plan to include the school and the park. From my conversation with Craig Foreman, he relayed the following: "Parks is not interested in taking ownership of the wetlands area. Our maintenance funding is barely able to keep up with our planned park acreage and any additional land to maintain will not be in existing or future budgets." Though Craig also indicated they could help with the natural paths since they will help provide access to the park. However, there are other options available to the HOA for obtaining assistance in maintaining this area, e.g., becoming a Certified Natural Area. Response: Acknowledged. Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 7 of 15 Page 7 of 15 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013 05/08/2013: The wetland area needs to be included in the first phase of the PDP, as the HOA will own that area. Also, please consider, when putting together the PDP and the enhancement plan for the wetland area, how key view sheds into the wetland area can be enhanced, e.g., from New Vine, from the school, park, and neighborhood, etc. Response: Please see the mitigation plan for key view sheds. Department: Light And Power Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Light & Power has existing electric facilities running along the West side of Timberline Dr., the North side of Vine Dr. and along both sides of Merganser Dr. to the North edge of the Bull Run development. The Bull Run development is also fed by Light & Power. Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will incur system modification charges. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Light & Power currently has no electric facilities near the proposed school site. These would have to be brought from Turnberry & existing Vine Dr. Coordinate with Light & Power Engineering to bring these facilities to the site. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: A C-1 form and One-line diagram will be required for the proposed school and park. If 3-phase power will be required for the park coordinate this early on with Light & Power Engineering. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges will apply to this development. Light & Power Engineering 970-221-6700. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 01 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Response: Acknowledged. Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 8 of 15 Page 8 of 15 COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. 2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS: Within the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. Outside the Urban Growth Area, hydrants to provide 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. 2006 International Fire Code 508.1 and Appendix B Comment Number: 02 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION New and existing buildings shall be plainly identified. Address numbers shall be visible from the street fronting the property, plainly visible, and posted with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 03 Comment Originated: 05/09/2013 05/09/2013: There are some road connectivity issues which were addressed at the design review meeting on 5-8-13. In conjunction with that discussion, I recommend that further consideration be given to the overall road design and in particular, to the "handle" shaped road immediately east of the pond/wetland. In the present design, this handle-shaped road extends for at least 1700 feet without providing for any kind of turn around. I would recommend this road to be redesigned with an alternate connecting point. Response: This road has been modified to provide two points of perpendicular access. It will terminate with a culd-e-sac until the future Conifer Street is constructed and becomes a thru street. There is also a major pedestrian corridor which connects mid block. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: The previously approved drainage study for this site will need to be revised to meet present standards. In particular the City's design storm is different that when this project was approved, which means that the water quantity detention volume may increase. The drainage report must address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs. 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 the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria Section 1.3.3. If you need clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse Schlam at 224-6015 or jschlam@fcgov.com. In addition the water quality control structure needs to be updated to the present detail and the site drainage system design will need to Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 9 of 15 Page 9 of 15 include LID (Low Impact Development) treatment of the runoff. Other modifications to the construction plans may be needed depending on the desired revisions to the original plans. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Onsite detention is required for the runoff volume difference between the 100 year developed inflow rate and the 2 year historic release rate. In the Dry Creek basin the two year historic release rate is 0.2 cfs/acre. The approved detention pond did include an easement for detention on the school property so I'm a little skeptical that the area shown for the detention is large enough. Also the environmental planner may comment that the wetland cannot be used for detention. That will probably be part of the discussion of the use, ownership, and maintenance of the wetland as was mentioned in the "Preliminary Design Review Narrative". In general the City departments do not take on the maintenance of private detention when it is an integral part of the development's drainage system. The Stormwater Department will not accept the maintenance responsibility. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: The existing drainage infrastructure has not been certified so we do not have documentation of what is built compared to what remains to be built even though the system map shows what was approved. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: Water quality treatment is also required as described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual, Volume 3 - Best Management Practices (BMPs). (http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-guideline s-regulations/stormwater-criteria) Extended detention is the usual method selected to treat 50% of the runoff; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. Low Impact Development (LID) requirements went into effect March 11, 2013. These require a higher degree of water quality treatment for 50% of the new impervious area and 25% of new paved areas must be pervious. Please contact Basil Hamdan at 224-6035 or bhamdan@fcgov.com for more information. There is also more information on the EPA web site at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/bbfs.cfm?goback=.gde_4605732_member_219392996. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: The drainage outfall for the site is as described in the narrative except that the narrative doesn't mention that there it a siphon under the Lake Canal which is the responsibility of the development to maintain. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: An addendum to or possibly a new development agreement may be required since there is probably different language required now and the phasing, erosion control escrow, and certification requirements will most likely change. Response: Meetings between the City and Owner are expected and will occur as we move forward with the process. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: The city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $6,390.00/acre ($0.1467/sq.ft.) Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 10 of 15 Page 10 of 15 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 contact Jean Pakech at 221- 6375 for questions on fees. 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 a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Design Criteria. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Dry Creek Master Drainage Plan as well the City's Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction standards. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/08/2013 05/08/2013: The Larimer and Weld Reservoir Company will need to sign the construction plans since this site is adjacent to their ditch. The Superintendent is Greg Jessen, 482-7635; the President is Perry Haythorn, 454-3911; and the Office Manager is Don E. Engel, 454-3377. This is the latest information we have but it is sometimes outdated. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/07/2013 05/07/2013: No comments. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: Water and wastewater service in this area are provided by the ELCO Water District (493-2044) and the Boxelder Sanitation District (498-0604). Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/01/2013 05/01/2013: The City of Fort Collins has a large water transmission main within an easement that crosses the northern part of this site. Response: Acknowledged. Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 11 of 15 Page 11 of 15 Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: Land Use Code (LUC) section 2.3.2(G) Overall development Plans are a Type 2 review. LUC 4.5(B)(2)(a) Single-family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings, single-family attached dwellings and multi-family dwellings with no more than 8 units per building and less than 50 dwelling units or 75 bedrooms are permitted use in the LMN zone district through a Type 1 review. LUC 4.5(B)(2)(b) Public schools and other open lands are a permitted uses in the LMN zone district through a Type 1 review. LUC 4.5(B)(1)(d) Neighborhood Parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan are a permitted use in the LMN zone district through a Basic Development review. When uses or plans are combined and one use and/or plan has a higher level of review than the other all are brought up to the higher level of review. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: LUC 4.5(D)(1)(a) Residential developments in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District shall have an overall minimum average density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre of residential land, except that residential developments (whether overall development plans or project development plans) containing twenty (20) acres or less shall have an overall minimum average density of three (3) dwelling units per net acre of residential land. Response: The net density shown on this PDP is 4.02 dwelling units per acre which is acceptable within the LMN Zone District. LUC 4.5(D)(1)(b) The maximum density of any development plan taken as a whole shall be nine (9) dwelling units per gross acre of residential land. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: LUC 4.5(D)(2)A mix of permitted housing types shall be included in any individual development plan, to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. In order to promote such variety, the following minimum standards shall be met: (a) A minimum of four (4) housing types shall be required on any such project development plan containing thirty (30) acres or more. Staff has determined that this will require a modification. Response: A Modification Request for three housing types instead of four has been submitted with the Overall Development Plan. This PDP assumes approval at the applicant’s risk. Single family detached with rear loaded garages, single family detached front loaded garages, and single family attached are the three Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 12 of 15 Page 12 of 15 proposed housing types. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/03/2013 05/03/2013: LUC 4.5(D)(3)(a) At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all development projects greater than forty (40) acres shall be located within three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three-quarter [¾] mile) of either a neighborhood center contained within the project, or an existing neighborhood center located in an adjacent development, or an existing or planned Neighborhood Commercial District commercial project, which distance shall be measured along street frontage, and without crossing an arterial street Response: A neighborhood center is planned for the northwest corner of the site and 90% of the dwellings will be within ¾ of a mile. LUC 4.5(D)(3)(C) ...A neighborhood center shall not exceed (5) acres in size, excluding such portion of the neighborhood center which is composed of a school, park, place of worship or assembly and/or outdoor space as defined in subparagraph (e) of this Section. Further clarification is needed to show how the project is meeting this 5 acre maximum. Response: At this time it is undecided as to what uses will be included within the Neighborhood Center. It is possible that a place of worship and outdoor space will be included which would be excluded from the maximum acreage. The neighborhood center shall follow the LUC at time of development. LUC 4.5(D)(3)(d) The design of neighborhood centers shall be integrated with surrounding residential areas by matching the scale of nearby residential buildings; providing direct access from surrounding residential areas; creating usable outdoor spaces; orienting building entrances to connecting walkways; and, to the extent reasonably feasible, maintaining/continuing the architectural themes or character of nearby neighborhoods It is unclear how direct access from the neighborhood center to the residential areas is achieved. Response: A direct street is proposed to the neighborhood center. All other design shall happen at time of future Phase Two Project Development Plan. LUC 4.5(D)(3)(e) A publicly accessible outdoor space such as a park, plaza, pavilion or courtyard shall be included within or adjacent to every neighborhood center to provide a focal point for such activities as outdoor gatherings, neighborhood events, picnicking, sitting and passive and active recreation. Where is the publicly accessible outdoor space within the neighborhood center? Response: The outdoor space shall be designed at time of future Phase Two Project Development Plan. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 4.5(D)(6) Either a neighborhood park or a privately owned park, that is at least one (1) acre in size, shall be located within a maximum of one-third (1/3) mile of at least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in any development project of ten (10) acres or larger as measured along street frontage. Such parks shall meet the following criteria: (a) Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 13 of 15 Page 13 of 15 pattern of lots and easily observed from streets. Rear facades and rear yards of dwellings shall not abut more than two (2) sides or more than fifty (50) percent of the perimeter frontage of the park. (b) Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians and open to the public. (c) Facilities. Such parks shall consist of multiple-use turf areas, walking paths, plazas, pavilions, picnic tables, benches or other features for various age groups to enjoy. (d) Ownership and Maintenance. Such parks may, in the discretion of the city, be acquired by the city (through dedication or purchase), or be privately owned and maintained by the developer or property owners association. (e) Storm Drainage. When integrating storm drainage and detention functions to satisfy this requirement, the design of such facilities shall not result in slopes or gradients that conflict with other recreational and civic purposes of the park. The private park on the south end of the project meets this park requirement, however further details will be need to show it complies with the accessibility, facilities and storm drainage requirements. Staff has determined that he city owned park land designated in the OPD also meets the standard. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 4.5(E)(1)(a) The local street system provided by the development shall provide an interconnected network of streets in a manner that results in blocks of developed land bounded by connecting streets no greater than twelve (12) acres in size. It appears there are block sizes greater than 12 acres in size, which does not comply. Response: The largest block is 5.5 acres and includes pedestrian access through the block. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 4.5(E)(2)(f) Building entrances shall face and open directly onto the adjoining local street with parking and any service functions located in side or rear yards and incorporated into the development according to the provisions of this Land Use Code. The school as illustrated in the ODP does not meet this requirement, this can be addressed in future PDP or SPAR. Response: Acknowledged. The school will either face Turnberry or Conifer and will be addressed in the future Phase Two PDP. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 4.5(E)(3) The maximum height of one-, two- and three-family dwellings shall be two and one-half (2.5) stories. Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 14 of 15 Page 14 of 15 Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 3.6.2 (E) Lots having a front or rear lot line that abuts an arterial street shall have a minimum depth of one hundred fifty (150) feet. Response: Acknowledged. The lot depths have maintained a 115’ depth and we have added a 35’ green space adjacent to the arterial street. (1) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative lot plan that does not meet the standard of this subsection (E) if the alternative lot plan includes additional buffering or screening that will, in the judgment of the decision maker, protect such lots from the noise, light and other potential negative impacts of the arterial street as well as, or better than, a plan which complies with the standard of this subsection (E). Response: Acknowledged. (2) Procedure. Alternative lot plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for streets, streetscapes, alleys and easements as set forth in this Section and landscape plans as set forth in Section 3.2.1. The alternative lot plan shall clearly identify and discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will equally well or better accomplish the purpose of this Subsection (E) than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Subsection (E). Response: Acknowledged. (3) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative lot plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose of this Subsection (E) as well as, or better than, a lot plan which complies with the standard of this Subsection. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the lot plan provides screening and protection of the lots adjacent to the arterial street from noise, light and other negative impacts of the arterial street equally well or better than a plan which complies Plans will need to show how this section is being met. Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 3.5.1 For residential structures Front setback is 30 ft from an arterial ROW and 15 ft from a non-arterial ROW. Interior side setback is 5ft Rear setback is 5ft except alley accessed garages are 8ft. LUC 3.5.1(D)(4) Minimum lot width for single-family detached is 50ft. LUC 3.5.1(E) Garage Door standards do apply (see section for details). Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 3.2.2(K)(1)(c) Single-Family Detached: For each single-family dwelling there shall be one (1) parking space on lots with greater than forty (40) feet of street frontage or two (2) parking spaces on lots with forty (40) feet or less of street frontage. Response: Acknowledged. Waterfield PDP – Comment Responses November 6, 2013 Page 15 of 15 Page 15 of 15 Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 3.5.3 This section does apply to the buildings in the Neighborhood Center and including the school (see section for details). Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 05/06/2013 05/06/2013: LUC 3.2.1 A landscape plan is required for the PDP which includes but is not limited to detached sidewalks with street trees (see section for further details). Response: Please see the landscape plan. LUC 3.2.4 A lighting plan is required for the Neighborhood Center, park and school. Response: Acknowledged. The lighting plan shall be included with the future Phase Two PDP LUC 3.2.5 An enclosure is required for the trash and recycling for the Neighborhood Center, park and school. Response: Acknowledged.