Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAPSTONE COTTAGES - PDP - PDP140004 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -Page 1 land planning  landscape architecture  urban design  entitlement May 7, 2014 RE: Capstone Cottages, PDR130006, Round Number The following note staff comments from the Capstone Cottages Project Development Review and comments responses shown in red that relate to the Project Development Plan submittal. Comment Summary: Department: Advance Planning Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 The East Mulberry Corridor Plan and City Structure Plan maps describe land use designations of Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (MMN) and Industrial within the applicant's property. Staff review of this application determined the request for additional MMN further supports the intent of locating multi-family residential adjacent to a commercial center. The proposed rezoning request including a change from Industrial to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods is nominal. Department: Current Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 Three distinct building designs are required per 3.8.30(F). If the cottage design with the 2 family du's and 22 single family du's are similar, then the designs would not meet this standard. The development proposal includes three distinct product designs: single-family cottages, duplexes and townhomes. The single family and duplex product types also include model variations within each product category to satisfy sec. 3.8.30(F). Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 The uses shown on the project plan are designated as single-family detached, two-family and multifamily. The occupancy limit is established using the guidelines in section 3.8.16, and the maximum occupancy allowed per dwelling unit in a single-family, two-family or multi-family dwelling shall be either: (1) one (1) family as defined in Section 5.1.2 and not more than one (1) additional person; or Page 2 (2) two (2) adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than one (1) additional person. The plan will require the occupancy to be increased per the procedure in 3.8.16(E), which states that: (1) With respect to single-family and two-family dwellings, the number of persons allowed under this Section may be increased by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for use as an extra occupancy rental house in zones allowing such use. Noted. (2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient additional amenities, either public or private, to sustain the activities associated with multi-family residential development, to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Such amenities may include, without limitation, passive open space, buffer yards, on-site management, recreational areas, plazas, courtyards, outdoor cafes, limited mixed-use restaurants, parking areas, sidewalks, bikeways, bus shelters, shuttle services or other facilities and services. The development proposal will include passive and active oriented open space, on-site management, plazas, courtyards, outdoor eating areas, variety of sidewalks, bike parking, ample parking opportunities, community room, interior workout space, pool and spa. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 3.8.28 Extra Occupancy regulations also apply. Maximum number of permissible residents, excluding occupant family, is one tenant per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of habitable floor space. Each unit will be sized to accommodate Extra Occupancy regulations. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 Staff recommends additional open space within the development to satisfy 3.8.16(E) criteria for extra occupancy and the requirements of 3.8.30(C), as follows: (C) Access to a Park, Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in all development projects shall be located within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet (one-quarter [¼] mile) of either a neighborhood park, a privately owned park or a central feature or gathering place that is located either within the project or within adjacent development, which distance shall be measured along street frontage without crossing an arterial street. Such parks, central features or gathering places shall contain one (1) or more of the following uses: (1) Public parks, recreation areas or other open lands. (2) Privately owned parks, meeting the following criteria: (a) Size. In development projects greater than two (2) acres in gross area, such private parks Page 3 must be a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. In development projects with a gross area of two (2) acres or less, such private parks must be a minimum of six (6) percent of the gross site area. (b) Location. Such parks shall be highly visible, secure settings formed by the street layout and 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. The plan provides passive and active park open space areas in excess of 2 acres. The entire development is within one-quarter mile of the 1.2 acre central park amenity. Open space areas are oriented to maximize the front facades of dwellings, while providing views into these areas from adjacent streets. The main park amenity has in excess of 1,000 perimeter feet, with less than 170 feet of this perimeter fronted by rear facades. (c) Accessibility. All parts of such parks shall be safely and easily accessible by pedestrians and open to the public. Parks and open space areas are connected throughout by an extensive pedestrian walk system. (d) 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 utilize. Facilities and items as noted are included in the development design. (e) 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. The open space and recreation facilities will be private and maintained by the development association. (f) 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 development proposal includes an extensive permeable pavement system that will be part of the drive and parking layouts. This type of storm drainage and detention system will allow the site’s open space areas to be free of slopes and gradients associated with detention storage facilities normally combined with these areas. (3) Community facilities or neighborhood support/recreation facilities (which are permitted as an accessory use to housing). If such facility is smaller than the required minimum size for privately owned parks as required in subparagraph (2)(a) above, then the facility shall be physically integrated with such park space as needed to meet the required minimum size. The community support/recreation facilities are larger than the 10,000 sf minimum size. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 Site plan layout- overall, the plan needs a stronger emphasis on functional open space and linking open spaces together visually; better connections from walkway spines to and through pocket parks. Wider spaces between buildings in some locations, combined with connecting walkways and spines, would help link open spaces together. The site layout has been modified to provide strong emphasis on functional open space. Page 4 Larger open space areas are framed by the surrounding housing and are linked to provide a strong pedestrian mode of travel through the development. Primary travel connections between dwelling units have been widened to make the open space more apparent from streets and parking, and pedestrian links at street crossing points are provided at street neckdowns to reduce crossing distances. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 The proposed plan has approximately 329 parking spaces more than the minimum requirement using multi-family parking ratios. Please provide a narrative and justification as to why the level of parking is needed and appropriate for this plan at this location. This proposal offers three methods for calculating parking demand. These are based on LUC Sec. 3.2.2. (K) for Multi-Family, LUC Sec. 3.2.2. (K)(j) for Extra Occupancy and the one space per bed method (to cover the unique use of the project as student housing). Each method calculates total parking required as 533, 613 and 817 spaces respectively. This development proposal includes 864 parking spaces. Since the development is intended tol function with a student housing use with a residential character, the preferred parking calculation method is to provide (as close as possible) one parking space per bed with 5% additional spaces for visitor parking. This will ensure there is no spill over parking occurring on surrounding neighborhoods. Although, this method assumes all of the residents will be provided parking with guest parking to spare, there will be a combination of factors that will allow a certain percentage of residents to live without cars: (1) the development will offer shuttle services for residents between home and school; (2) nearby services are within easy walking distance; and (3) a high percentage of cars are available to share. These factors will eliminate potential parking deficits and reduce trips to surrounding areas. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 Satisfying the 7-acre block size requirement is not infeasible. The block size requirement is in part to enable a layout pattern that allows buildings to front on streets, per LUC 3.8.30(B)(4) and LUC 3.5.2. Staff would support a modification to the block size provided that a proposed plan is determined to be equal to or better than a plan that would meet the standard. In conjunction with the question of a Modification of Standard for density lower than the minimum required 12 units per acre, provide a site plan and written analysis showing plan that meets the 12 units/acre and minimum block size requirement for comparison with the proposed plan. Street-like private drives internally define the entirety of Lots 1, 2 for Block 1, and a large portion of Lot 3 for Block 1. Rather than adding more asphalt and continuing the South Clubhouse Drive through the main amenity, a 7 foot tree lined walk precedes at the north end of South Clubhouse Drive around the east/west sides of the amenity space. This tree lined walk is preferred because it preserves the pedestrian character on the central amenity. Adding a drive to this area would divide and reduce the open space, and provide redundant automotive access that is already occurs through the parking drive connections. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 LUC 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards shall apply. Front facades must face the street, not parking lots. Front facades with primary entrances for each dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street; connecting walkway or major walkway spine. Also note that single family detached and two-family dwellings are required to be setback 30 feet from arterial streets and 15 feet from non-arterial streets; alternative compliance may be requested to this standard. Dwelling units have been oriented to face streets, and setbacks applied as noted. Page 5 Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 LUC 3.8.30 Multi-Family Dwelling Development Standards apply. Minimum setback from ROW's are 15 feet for arterials and 9 feet for nonarterials. This is part of the recent LUC changes. Setback was formerly "none" in MMN zone. Exceptions may be permitted per the process outlined in 3.8.30(E)(3). Town Home units (classified here as Multi-Family) adhere to a 15 foot minimum setback. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 The multi-family portion of the project requires minimum bicycle parking per LUC 3.2.2C4, 1 space per bedroom. 60/40 enclosed / fixed. Of the total 817 total bike parking spaces, 329 spaces will be accommodated at fixed rack locations and 493 spaces will be accommodated by a combination of porches and bike shelters. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 LUC 3.2.2(B) The parking and circulation system within each development shall accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to the attractiveness of the development. The on-site pedestrian system must provide adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest and security as defined by the standards in this Section. The on-site bicycle system must connect to the city's on-street bikeway network. The parking and circulation system (vehicular and pedestrian) has been designed to accommodate the safe movement of vehicles, pedestrians, service and emergency equipment throughout. Bike lanes are incorporated on all private and public streets. Traffic calming neckdowns are included on street-like private drives at intersections and pedestrian crossings. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 LUC 3.2.2(C)(5) The on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system must be designed to provide, or allow for, direct connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations including, but not limited to, parks, schools, Neighborhood Centers, Neighborhood Commercial Districts and transit stops that are located either within the development or adjacent to the development as required, to the maximum extent feasible. Bike lanes on streets and pedestrian walks are incorporated throughout the development; connecting dwelling units to parking, surrounding amenities and existing adjacent streets. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 Please be aware that minimum parking requirements should be calculated based on uses: on a per bedroom basis for the multi-family and two family buildings; 2 spaces per single family detached dwelling. Parking on internal streets may be counted towards minimum parking requirements; add this to the parking tabulations. Minimum parking requirements were calculated based on Multi-family, Extra-Occupancy and per Bed methods. Parking on internal streets was included in the overall parking count. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 Parking lot landscaping will be a key component of the project; please show detailed calculations for this and summarize in table format. Delineate and label the parking lot perimeter on the landscape plans as a dashed line and quantify in the table. Parking lot landscaping and screening will adhere to Land-Use Code requirements. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 Several of the multi-family buildings are rather long, 11 -14 units, we recommend breaking the Page 6 buildings into smaller modules. Turn the corners of streets / parking with front facing facades if feasible. We also recommend staggering the building setbacks to provide a more varied street appearance. The multi-family buildings were reduced in length to a maximum of 7 units, with the predominant number of buildings between 3 and 5 unit configurations. Buildings were staggered, broken into smaller configurations and separated from one-another to provide access and open space corridors. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 3.8.26 requires residential buffering from existing industrial uses to the east. This would be a buffer yard "B", 30 feet minimum is recommended. A 30 foot residential buffer is provided between dwellings and existing industrial to the east. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 Zoning: Staff is in support of the request to rezone a portion of the property from Industrial to MMN provided that the project meets the rezoning criteria described in LUC 2.9.4(G)(H)(3). A rezoning petition is included concurrent with the PDP submittal. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: 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. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: 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 Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: 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. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: 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. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: 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 Acknowledged. Page 7 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: The project is required to dedicate right-of-way and utility easements for ultimate Lemay Avenue (115 feet right-of-way, 15 feet utility easement either side), Buckingham Street/Duff Avenue (76 feet right-of-way, 9 feet utility easement either side) and Lincoln Avenue/International Boulevard (84 feet right-of-way, 15 feet utility easement either side) abutting the property in conformance to the roadway classifications for these streets. The project is also required to design the frontages of these streets (for both interim and ultimate if appropriate). Offsite design of these frontages are also required with the arterial streets (Lemay, Lincoln, and International) requiring 1,000 feet of offsite design in both directions and the collector streets (Buckingham/Duff) requiring 500 feet of offsite design in both directions. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: The project is required to construct frontage improvements to Lemay, Lincoln, International, and Buckingham/Duff. The project is entitled to reimbursement from street oversizing for the construction of these roads in a manner that’s demonstrated to be both in the ultimate condition for these roadways and beyond the local street portion of width up to the width of the classified roadway. City Transportation will require Duff/Buckingham built abutting the property with the development and not support providing funds in lieu of construction. The construction of Duff/Buckingham may need to extend west offsite to tie into the existing Lemay/Buckingham intersection, pending review of a traffic study for the project. Interim connections to existing roadways not in their ultimate configuration are likely needed, especially to Lemay Avenue as it seems that construction of realigned Lemay Avenue at this time in its ultimate condition would be unlikely. Placement of sidewalk along Lemay Avenue in its ultimate realigned condition should be done at this time however in order to give a physical cue to the future roadway. Trees shown on the site plan that would be in the ultimate construction of Lemay Avenue should not be planted at this time. Roadways fronting the property that aren’t built in its ultimate condition will need to provide funds for the local street portion of these roadways, though the City would prefer for as much ultimate roadway to be built as possible. The proposed roadway improvements are as follows. Lincoln Avenue: detached sidewalk built in ultimate l onset. Duff Drive: detached sidewalk built in ultimate location along entire frontage, northern sidewalk deferred to future development (by others), full-width ultimate improvements from existing terminus west to Club House Drive, funds in lieu for local street portion between Club House Drive and (realigned) Lemay Avenue. International Boulevard: full-width ultimate improvements built at onset, interim “throwaway” connection to Lincoln Avenue. Lemay Avenue: detached sidewalk built in ultimate location along entire frontage, western sidewalk deferred to future development, funds in lieu for local street portion, interim “throwaway” connection from Cottage Drive to existing Lemay Avenue. The TIS submitted with this PDP shows that extending Duff Drive west to Lemay/Buckingham is not necessary at this time. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: The sketch for International running through the property shows a left-hand turn off of Lincoln Avenue. The City has a concern that this design may not handle the traffic Page 8 volumes with the back to back signals and may not operate acceptably as a result. It should be noted that the East Mulberry Corridor Plan indicates that International Boulevard is intended to function as the primary east to west alternative to East Mulberry Street and the approved overall development plan for Airpark Village indicates arterial volumes through this general area; the left hand turn off of Lincoln and the curves to International may have operational concerns such as the left turn stack to turn left off of Lincoln onto International backing up onto Lemay, the potential need for double lefts, etc. A roundabout perhaps may be worth exploring for this intersection and is required per the next comment. Note that regarding costs, if a roundabout is ultimately implemented the local street portion costs attributable to the development would be required from the developer. If a traffic signal is ultimately implemented 24-112(a) of the City Code stipulates that street oversizing funds may be utilized to pay for all traffic control signals associated with arterial-arterial intersections and for one (1) such signal per collector-arterial intersection per mile. It would not be envisioned that this intersection would be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: In general all arterial-arterial intersections and arterial-collector intersections will need to be analyzed for the suitability of a roundabout at each intersection as part of the TIS per City Council Resolution 2011-120. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: 3.6.3(F) of the Land Use Code requires that a project must incorporate and continue sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the project. Webster Avenue currently terminates at the eastern boundary of the site and would need to be addressed against this code citation. The extension of Webster Avenue would either need to occur as reviewed through Planning or, if approved by Planning to be absent of this extension, then the roadway would need to terminate into a cul-de-sac in accordance with 3.6.2(B) of the Land Use Code. Webster Avenue is shown to be extended from its current terminus, west to International Boulevard. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: Full movement access for the site onto Lincoln and Lemay may be a concern and would need to be further reviewed. The median on Lincoln might need to be extended to change the access onto Lincoln as right-in and right-out, and similarly with the access on to Lemay. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: Access onto Lemay for the ultimate condition may need a sight distance easement across the development (and potentially the Bank of Colorado property to the south). A sight distance easement has been delineated utilizing the most current AASHTO criteria. Said easement is shown on the PDP submittal documents, and does not require any off-site dedication. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: In response to the questions directed to Transportation/Engineering: 1) Representatives from Traffic and Transportation Planning had indicated being present for the PDR in addition to Engineering. Page 9 Acknowledged. 2) Not aware of a preliminary design for ultimate Lemay Avenue, however we’re relying on the right-of-way north of the site to serve as the right-of-way for realigned Lemay. The applicant would need to provide offsite design as previously indicated. Deeds for existing off-site right-of-way dedication were located. Preliminary off-site design information has been supplied with this PDP submittal. 3) Transportation staff sees support in the eyebrow connection. Since the TIS has determined that Duff Drive does not need to extend west to Lemay/Buckingham at this time, this is no longer an issue for this PDP. 4) This development proposal would not be responsible for costs associated with this eyebrow improvement. N/A, per 3) above. 5) Buckingham/Duff abutting the property would need to be built as part of the project. Off-site connection to the existing Lemay/Buckingham intersection may also be needed. See response to Comment Number: 7, above. 6) Parking on International would not be supported in both the interim and ultimate. No parking is proposed on International Boulevard. 7) The platting of properties to the north would be acceptable. Note that an approved final plan would not be established for these parcels and that a development agreement would only be established for the parcel being developed. In addition, the boundary for the project would need to include the north side of Buckingham/Duff. See Subdivision Plat, included with the PDP submittal package. 8) The alignment tying International to Lincoln without the sweeping curve or roundabout may be of concern and viewed as not being consistent with the Master Street Plan and the East Mulberry Corridor Plan. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: Construction plans will be required. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: A Development Agreement is required and will be recorded once the project is finalized with recordation costs paid for by the applicant. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any work on the site. Acknowledged. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 This site is within 500 feet of a known natural habitat (wetlands on south side of property, adjacent to Lemay), which requires an Ecological Characterization Study be submitted to the City (pursuant to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code). Please note the buffer zone standards of 50’ for wetlands less than 1/3 of an acre in size, as identified in Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code, as you proceed with your site design process. Page 10 The ECS has been provided with the development proposal. The noted wetlands at the south end of the property will be affected by the storm drain that will replace the existing ditch. Mitigation measures will be provided at the direction of Cedar Creek Associates and the City Environmental Planning for this area and the noted areas in Lot 1, Block 2. Please note that the Ecological Characterization Study is due a minimum of 10 days prior to the PDP submittal. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 Within the 50’ buffer zone, according to Article 3.4.1(E)(1)(g), the City has the ability to determine if the existing landscaping within the buffer zone is incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone. Please ensure that your ECS discusses the existing vegetation and identifies potential restoration options, including how the proposed detention area will meet both stormwater and environmental planning requirements. If it is determined to be insufficient, then restoration and mitigation measures will be required. The ECS provides description and restoration options for existing landscape. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: With respect to lighting, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D) (6) requires that “natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off site sources.” Thus, lighting from the parking areas or other site amenities shall not spill over to the buffer areas. Per agreement with the city planner, the lighting photometric plan will be submitted after 2nd round comments. All site lighting will conform to city lighting code requirements. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: The applicant should make note of Article 3.2.1(C) that requires developments to submit plans that "...(4) protects significant trees, natural systems, and habitat". Note that a significant tree is defined as a tree having DBH (Diameter at Breast Height) of six inches or more. If any trees on site have a DBH of greater than six inches, a review of the trees shall be conducted with Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221 6361) to determine the status of the existing trees and any mitigation requirements as the result of development impacts. All trees were reviewed with Tim Buchanan with the exception of trees affected by the future realignment of Lemay Avenue. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: With respect to landscaping and design, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.1 (E)(2)(3), requires that you use native plants and grasses in your landscaping or re landscaping and reduce bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Native and regionally adaptable plants with limited water requirements will be used extensively. The landscape plan includes preliminary layout of turf and shrub areas. A plant list is included with tree, shrub and perennials varieties. Turf and native seed mixes are also included. Turf with higher water requirements will be limited to high traffic areas and native turf varieties at low impact areas. Department: Light And Power Contact: Justin Fields, 970-224-6150, jfields@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Each dwelling unit must be individually metered. Each unit will be metered individually. Page 11 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Coordinate transformer and meter locations with Light and Power Engineering, (970) 221-6700. Transformers need to be within 10 feet of an all-weather dive over surface and must have 3 feet of clearance on the sides and back and 8 feet of clearance on the front. Utility equipment will be coordinated with Light & Power. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 A C-1 form and 1-line diagram will be required for the club house. The C-1 form is available at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/c-1_form.pdf.08/06/2013: Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Shade trees are required to maintain 40 feet of clearance with street lights and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of clearance with street lights. Landscape clearances will be maintained with street lights. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Electric development charges will apply. Contact Light and Power Engineering for an estimate of these charges. Noted. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: FIRE LANES Fire Lanes shall be provided to within 150' of all portions of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. When fire lanes cannot be provided, the fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet if the building is equipped throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system. 2006 International Fire Code 503.1.1 Noted. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: DEAD-END FIRE LANES Dead-end fire apparatus access roads cannot exceed 660 feet in length. It is unclear if this code requirement is being met with the current site plan. Further review and discussion is advised. FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; International Fire Code 503.2.5 and Appendix D Noted. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: > Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. Fire lanes and Emergency Access easements will be designated on the Final Plat. > Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width (except as noted in comment #3) & 14 foot minimum overhead clearance. Clearances shall be maintained as stated. > Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons. Page 12 Noted. > Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Noted. > The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii to be verified on submitted plans. 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside radii are included on the site plan. > Be visible by paint and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. 2006 International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2.5, 503.3, 503.4 and Appendix D; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006 and Local Amendments. Noted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' (OR THREE OR MORE STORIES) IN HEIGHT In order to accommodate aerial fire apparatus access, required fire lanes shall be 30 foot wide minimum on at least one long side of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. 2006 International Fire Code Appendix D; Poudre Fire Authority Administrative Policy 85-5 30’ feet minimum drive lanes are provided at all locations fronting multi-family dwellings (multifamily are 3-story in height; single-family and duplex dwellings are 2-story in height). Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: WATER SUPPLY Hydrant spacing and flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Hydrants for commercial properties are 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 Noted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS An automatic sprinkler system installed in occupancies in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R (Residential) fire area. Exceptions: Detached one and two-family dwellings and multiple single-family dwellings (townhomes) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress. 2006 International Fire Code 903.2.7 All dwelling units will be fire sprinklered. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: BALCONIES AND DECKS Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. 2006 International Fire Code 903.3.1.2.1 Noted. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: FDC Fire Department Connections shall be installed in accordance with NFPA standards. Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by the fire department. Page 13 2006 International Fire Code 912.2 Noted. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: 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. A comprehensive addressing plan for the complex shall be submitted in advance for review and approval by the fire department. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1 Noted. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/07/2013: FIRE PITS Fire pits fueled by natural gas are allowed. Wood burning or smoke producing fire pits are prohibited. Noted. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Glen Schlueter, 970-224-6065, gschlueter@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Floodplain Comments: This project is located within the Poudre River 500-year floodplain (shaded Zone X). A Flood Risk Map showing the property and the FEMA floodplain is attached. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Chapter 10 of City Code prohibits the construction of critical facilities within the 500-year floodplain. As long as the development proposal does not contain any critical facilities, there will be no floodplain permitting requirements for the development of this property. The proposed development does not contain any critical facilities. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: The Floodplain Administrator for the Poudre River Floodplain is Marsha Hilmes-Robinson; 970.224.6036, mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com. Feel free to contact Marsha if you have any questions or concerns. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Stormwater Development Review Comments: A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. 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. In addition, there is a final site inspection required when the project is complete and maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance organization. The erosion control requirements have been updated 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. Page 14 Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Onsite detention is required for the runoff volume difference between the 100 year developed inflow rate with the 2 year historic release rate. In the Dry Creek basin, the two year historic release rate is 0.2 cfs/acre. However the previous Lincoln Park project was using a staged release rate of 1.25 cfs for the 10 year storm and 2.5 cfs for the 100 year storm. Refer to the Drainage Report for a more detailed response, including SWMM analysis and detention sizing concepts. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: The outfall for the site is the Lincoln Channel. Larimer County must approve the release of the site runoff into the channel. The site’s previous proposal was approved but since this is a different proposal and includes more land area; Larimer County will need to approve this project separately. Please contact Eric Tracy at 498-5729 or tracyel@co.larimer.co.us. There is also the storm drain line outfall for the San Cristo development that has extra capacity for this site to use. The landowner required the extra capacity in order to grant the developer of San Cristo the easement for the pipe. Acknowledged. Eric Tracy has been informed of the proposed development and drainage concepts. Thank you for the information about the San Cristo pipe. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Fifty percent of the site runoff is required to be treated using the standard water quality treatment 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 for water quality treatment; however the use of any of the BMPs is encouraged. The proposed drainage plan exceeds minimum code requirements for water quality Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: 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. LID design information can be found on the City's web site at: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-guidelines -regulations/stormwater-criteria. This preliminary proposal is to use the paver section for detention storage. There is a lot to work out in that scenario so I can't say for sure that it will be acceptable. I need to hear more about this and see some calculations with percolation rates to determine if this approach is even feasible. The proposed drainage plan significantly exceeds the minimum LID requirements. Additional information on the permeable paver system can be found in the Drainage Report. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: The city wide 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 Page 15 ($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, cost of the measures, or a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: 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. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: A question was asked about relying on the permeable pavement systems to handle detention and water quality treatment. As stated above that depends on percolation rates and the volume of storage that is needed. That cannot be answered without an analysis. The concept may be feasible but should have a backup plan should it fail. Also the SOP for the permeable pavement system will need to include an aggressive maintenance plan and include at least annual reports to the Stormwater Utility. Again please contact Basil Hamdan at 224-6035 or bhamdan@fcgov.com for more information. A meeting has been requested to further discuss this issue with Stormwater Staff a week or two after the initial PDP submittal (early to mid-April). Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: One of the questions was who is responsible for any displaced volume from San Cristo PUD and that would be whoever displaces it. In this case it appears to be the developer proposing to displace it. This is no longer an issue for this development, as the TIS does not require Duff Drive to extend to Lemay/Buckingham at this time. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 08/05/2013: No comments. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 There are known issues with pedestrian connectivity in the development area that should be addressed in the Transportation Impact Study Pedestrian LOS analysis. Some destination Page 16 areas for you to consider include the Andersonville neighborhood north of the development, the church on Lemay Avenue, and the park in front of the Streets Facility. See the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Appendix H for more details on methodology. All street-like private drives, Duff Drive, International Blvd. and Webster Avenue have detached pedestrian walks and bike lanes included. Detached pedestrian walks will be built with the first phase along the future Lemay Avenue alignment, the south side of the Duff Drive frontage, both sides of International Boulevard & Webster Drive and the north frontage of Lincoln Avenue. To aid north/south pedestrian travel, a trail connection has been provided the corner of the future Lemay and Duff Drive to the Andersonville neighborhood to the north. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/07/2013 Advisory: Please consider innovative ways to reduce the parking needs to less than one space per room (e.g., car share, transit subsidies, bike amenities). This would support CSU and City sustainability goals and offer you the opportunity to market as a unique “green” option to students who are increasingly interested in living car-free. See Current Planning Comment Response #6 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Existing City water mains and sanitary sewers in this area include a 24-inch water main in Lemay, an 8-inch water main in Lincoln and a 10-inch sewer in N/S alignment through the site. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Both the City and the ELCO Water District have water mains in this area. The City and the District are currently working on a service area boundary in this area. No final determination of the boundary is available at this time; however, it is likely that ELCO will be providing service to this site. The assumption is that ELCO will provide water to this site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: Development fees and water rights will be due at building permit. If the City is the service provider, there will also be a water main repay due prior to the first building permit for the developer’s portion of the 24-inch main in Lemay. Acknowledged. The assumption is that ELCO will provide water to this site. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: A portion of the develoment is in the I-Industrial zone district. Single-family, Page 17 duplex, and townhome uses aren't allowed in the I zone. If it's not rezoned to MMN, then an 'additon of permitted use' process will be required. This area will be rezoned to MMN. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: The plan will need to be processed as a Type 2, Planning and Zoning Board review. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: A note should be added to the site plan stating the intent is to convert the single-family and duplex to 5 bedroom Extra Occupancy Rental Houses after CO's are obtained for the SF and Duplexes. A note to this affect was added to the Site Plan, General Notes, #4. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/06/2013 08/06/2013: The housing types listed in the Land Use Table should reflect actual defined terms in the Land Use Code. i.e. 'cottage' is detached single-family, 'duplex cottage' is duplex, and 'town homes' is multi-family (or attached single-family if each unit is on its own lot). Housing type listed were edited to LUC terms.