Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTORYBOOK THIRD FILING - FDP - FDP130051 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview October 14, 2013 Michael Mcbride BHA Design 1603 Oakridge Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Storybook 2nd Filing, PDP130021, Round Number 2 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/23/2013 07/23/2013: (Repeat Comment for Emphasis) With open fencing, what are the opportunities to buffer the back yards being only 20 feet away from a collector roadway that, according to the Master Street Plan, will extend for about 1.5 miles? And that within these 20 feet is a drainage swale? Given the fact that Lots 63 through 76 are essentially double-frontage lots, has any consideration been given to providing some additional buffering to mitigate traffic noise, headlight glare and public roadway lighting? Will rear yard landscaping be the responsibility of each individual homeowner? Or will common landscaping be installed to establish some plant maturity prior to construction Bar Harbor Drive? Lots 67 and 68 look particularly vulnerable due to the proximity of the future Bar Harbor / Chesapeake intersection. Staff recommends that in addition to the call out for an eight-foot wide utility and drainage easement, additional width be dedicated for a buffer from future Bar Harbor Drive and that the extent of the buffer be shown on the Landscape Plan. Response: Buffer planting has been provided behind lots 63 through 76 Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: The response to the request for buffering along the east side of the project behind Lots 63 - 76 needs more discussion. Staff remains concerned that these 14 lots will be impacted by not only the collector roadway but also by the various activities associated with a 100-acre public school campus. Based on the experience of the having school sites in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, we have found that an effective buffer yard is appreciated by all parties and goes a long way in promoting neighborhood compatibility. This project, as currently designed, has no buffer yard. There is an opportunity to establish a buffer and allow for plant maturity prior to development of either the collector street or the school campus. In addition, this buffer will contribute to screening the brewery. The buffer can be planted within the offsite drainage easement between the rear property line and the concrete pan, a distance of approximately nine feet. The side slope of 10 : 1 will allow for plant material without any problems due to the slope. The drainage coming off the rear yards is minimal and would only contribute to plant viability. The irrigation could be drip versus spray using considerably less volume. The plantings would not impair the functionality of the drainage channel as the anticipated volume is only 7 to 9 cubic feet per second. Our conversation with the Poudre School District is that a buffer yard has benefits for all parties as long as the District is not obligated for any maintenance. While the project appears to be in no need of buffering at this time, the future development of a 100-acre school campus (two schools, parking lots, athletic fields) and a collector street that will serve a three neighborhoods over a length of 1.5 miles requires serious consideration with regard to land use transition and neighborhood compatibility. Here are links to the C.S.U. Extension Service: https://www.google.com/#q=trees+do+well+wind&revid=280246975 https://www.google.com/#q=colorado+state+university+extension+trees\ Response: Buffer planting has been provided behind lots 63 through 76 Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Tract C is labeled as a 10-foot public access easement. Please indicate that this easement will be improved with a concrete walkway. The minimum width of this walkway must be six feet. This walkway should be flared at its intersection with the public sidewalk on Mountain Vista Drive. Response: Walkway has been labeled as 6’ concrete walk and flared ends have been provided when it meets other sidewalks. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: For Lot Typical 55-feet and 55-feet corner lot, it appears that the garages are not properly recessed. The garage must be recessed from the ground floor living area by four feet and it scales three feet. Or, the garage must be recessed four feet by a porch measuring at least six feet x eight feet and these two porches scale only five feet x eight feet. Response: Dimensions have been verified and provided showing that the garage is recessed by four feet from the ground floor living area. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: Regarding full development of the park, a reference is made that a portion of the park is to remain undeveloped and that future development is to be "by others." Please provide a letter from the existing H.O.A. that indicates the H.O.A. is aware of their obligation and further indicates that they grant you permission to improve a portion of the park per the plan as submitted. A letter of intent is all that is needed for the public hearing. For recording a Final Plan, we should discuss whether or not an easement needs to be granted by the H.O.A. to allow work within the park. Response: HOA letter has been provided in the Final Plan Submittal. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Andrew Gingerich, 970-221-6603, agingerich@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 07/24/2013: As discussed previously money will need to be collected for the portions of Chesapeake that are not constructed. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 10/09/2013: The plans do not clearly show what will be built on Mountain Vista, the location of the sidewalk the existing Right of Way, etc. 07/24/2013: It is the understanding that the applicant proposes to construct the north side of Mountain Vista Drive for the portion adjacent to their frontage. Final design plan and profiles for centerline and flowlines will need to be provided. The plans for the 2nd filing was only a future preliminary design that was shown. Per our Master Street Plan this road should be designed as a 2-lane arterial. Special attention should be paid to how this sidewalk for this portion will tie to the existing sidewalk just west of this frontage. Response: A more detailed design has been provided in the Final Plan submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 07/24/2013 10/09/2013: Existing asphalt, transitions and proposed construction as it relates to the existing roadway are not shown on the plans. 07/24/2013: Please provide some additional detail on how the north side of Mountain Vista will be constructed and how it will tie to the existing asphalt. Response: Additional detail has been provided. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: Mountain Vista is an arterial roadway and thus requires preliminary centerline design 1000' past each side of the project. The second filing currently has design for the centerline but shows the 4-lane section. This section will need to be shown as 2-lane. Response: Mountain Vista has been revised to show a 2-lane section. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: The cross sections for Mountain Vista appear to show the entire roadway being constructed and not just the north side. The plans do not show Little John tieing into the 2-lane section of Mountain Vista as well as the curb returns and sidewalk at this intersection. Response: Mountain Vista has been revised to show a 2-lane section. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: The Drainage plan appears to have some swale cross sections that are not accurately shown the correct amount of run off. Please revise. Response: Noted and revised. Topic: General Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: Numerous areas on the plans but specifically on the utility plans there are still design callouts that apply to infrastructure that has already been completed. See redlines for more information. Response: Noted. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Provide actual quantities of trees shrubs and other landscape plants in the plant schedule. Response: Quantities provided. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Requested street trees species adjustments and clarification as follows. Use Sentry American Linden in place of Texas Red Oak. Use Skyline Honeylocust in place of Shademaster Honeylocust. Use Bur Oak along Monte Vista in place of Chinkapin Oak and also use Bur Oak in place of the Little leaf Linden shown in the parkway along Monte Vista. Specify the Littleleaf Linden as Greenspire Littleleaf Linden. Street trees are labeled as QUMA on both sides of Deep Wood Lane. QUMA is not in the plant list. It is assumed that these are intended to be Bur Oak which would be a good choice for this location. Response: Street tree suggestions have been implemented on the latest plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Please add these two notes in place of General Note number 2. • A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. • The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. Response: Notes have been added to the General Notes section. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Please add these additional separations in General Note number 3. Provide street tree locations that meet these separation standards. Forty feet between shade trees and street lights Eight feet from driveways Twenty feet between trees and traffic control signs Response: Notes have been added to the General Notes section. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Please add this General Note. All street tree planting shall be the responsibility of the developer for planting. Actual planting of Street Trees shall be a qualified landscape contractor. Response: Note has been added to the General Notes section. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please add these landscape notes: Street trees shall be installed by residential lots by the developer at time of CO, unless time of year limits tree planting, in which case residential street trees shall be planted within than 6 months of CO. The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting unit final inspection and acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees must be established, an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. Street tree locations and numbers may be adjusted to accommodate driveway locations, utilities separation between trees, street signs and street light. Street trees to be centered in the middle of the lot to the extent feasible. Quantities shown on plan must be installed unless a reduction occurs to meet separation standards. Response: Notes have been added to the General Notes section. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/11/2013 07/11/2013: All prior fire department concerns have been addressed. No further comment. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/17/2013 10/1/2013: Repeat- Erosion Control Plan was found, Erosion Control Report and Escrow Calculation were not submitted. Please Submit for FDP. 07/17/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response: Noted. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: At final, detailed design will be reviewed of all the bio-swales that are proposed for this development. Response: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 07/18/2013 07/18/2013: Please include the ditch company's allowable release rate into their ditch for this development in the drainage report after a decision is made.. Response: Release rate included in the drainage report. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Stormwater is ready for a hearing. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 07/12/2013 10/08/2013: These plans were not routed to us for this review. 07/12/2013: Please change the title to "Storybook 2nd Filing" on all sheets. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 07/12/2013 10/08/2013: These plans were not routed to us for this review. 07/12/2013: Can the text & linework be sharpened up on all sheets? See redlines. Response: These are jpg’s from the architect that were saved to the highest quality possible. Will make sure the mylars are as clear as possible. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 07/12/2013 10/08/2013: These plans were not routed to us for this review. 07/12/2013: There are line over text issues on sheets 2 & 3. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 07/12/2013 10/08/2013: There are still line over text issues on sheets 4, 5, 9 & 12. See redlines. 07/12/2013: There are line over text issues on several sheets. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please mask all text within the profiles on sheets 7 - 12. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please remove all street rights of way (that were previously dedicated with the Storybook 2nd Filing plat) from this replat. The legal description and boundaries should be adjusted accordingly. See redlines for changes to be made. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please change the street right of way dedication notes from "this plat" to "Storybook 2nd Filing". See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please update the language for the Cerificate Of Dedication. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please show the west right of way lines of Little John Lane. See redlines. Response: Added. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please re-letter the Tracts starting with A. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please label all adjoining properties (as subdivision name or unplatted) surrounding the boundaries. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please indicate which pins were found and which were set. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please make sure that all easements are locatable. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please add a note for the Basis Of Bearings. Response: Added. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please add a linear measurement statement. Response: Added. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please add a note for any title commitments for the property. Response: Added. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add a signature block. If not, please add a note stating that there are no lienholders. Response: There are not leinholders, not has been added. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the aliquot corners shown. Alternatively, you may make one of the exterior line of your boundaries the Basis Of Bearings, and not show the section corners. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please correct the street names in the vicinity map. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Please correct the spelling of "decrease" in note #4. See redlines. Response: Noted and revised. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: We don't see any private access easements, as referred to in note #3. Are there any? Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/13/2013 10/13/2013: Please add Stop signs with Street name signs to the side streets with Little John and also at Little John and Mountain Vista. 07/15/2013: The Transportation Impact Study is accepted. 10/13/2013: Please add Stop Signs with Street Name Signs to the side streets with Little John and also at Little John and Mountain Vista. Response: Noted and revised.