HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHORELL PARK SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY JOHNSTON ANNEXATION) - PDP - PDP160032 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2)Fort Collins
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/deve/opmentrevlew
November 7, 2016
Lonny Phelps
Phelps Engineering Services, Inc.
7200 E. Hampden Ave Ste 300
Denver, CO 80224
RE: Thorell Park Subdivision (formerly Johnston Annexation), PDP160032, Round
Number 1
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, (970) 221-6343, or tshepard@fcqov.com.
Comment Summary:
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The property owner to the north should be provide a "letter of
intent" that acknowledges the proposed right-of-way, grading and utility aspects
of the project being installed on their property, does not object to the project
moving forward to a hearing with these items within their property, and intends
to grant easements and the Rosen Drive right-of-way prior to final plan approval.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: A letter of intent is also required from the ditch owner prior to a
hearing.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The preliminary soils report indicates groundwater encountered at
depths of around 3 feet from existing grade. When groundwater is encountered
within 5 feet, LCUASS 5.6 requires that a subsurface groundwater investigation
report be conducted in order to address how to mitigate high groundwater with
City public streets. In addition, with the understanding that basements are being
contemplated for the project, any subdrain system for the basements would
need to have a suitable outfall that ensure the outfall point has a 100 year
surface elevation that is below the lowest level of any basements in the
subdivision. The ongoing maintenance of a subdrain system would be the
HOA/property owners and not the City.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Red Willow Drive is a collector and requires the installation of a 5
foot wide detached sidewalk and an 8 foot wide parkway from the face of curb
and the detached sidewalk. Right-of-way dedication to the back of walk is
required, along with the 9 foot utility easement from behind this new right-of-way.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: In general there are several instances of shallow storm lines
crossing public streets that do not meet our minimum cover over the roadway
section. In general, we require a minimum of 3 foot of clearance from the
finished grade of the roadway to the top of pipe. In several instances, much less
that 3 feet is indicated and is problematic. (LCUASS section 12.2.2 specifies
minimum depth, which indicates 2 feet below scarified subgrade, and we then
presume the pavement section is 12 inches below finished grade, utilizing 3
feet as our guide in this standard).
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Irrigation crossings of public streets require an encroachment
permit through Engineering Inspection. Additional criteria such as sleeving of
the pipe with a steel casing in right-of-way is required (for ease of
access/replacement without needing to cut the street). Note however that the
irrigation line shown along the west side of Red Willow Drive may (with the
required detaching of sidewalk along the street and its corresponding
right-of-way and utility easement dedication) actually be under right-of-way
which is not allowed for a private line to run parallel within right-of-way. This
appears to be the case as well with the line at the north end of Red Willow Drive
and heading west, this area is shown to be right-of-way and is problematic --
this area needs to be a tract that's not right-of-way.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The storm sewer design appears to be under the street parkways
where street trees are installed, isn't this in conflict with separation from trees?
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The McKusky Drive and Cranston Drive private drives have
receiving access ramps on the north side of Rosen Drive, but technically no
ramps on the south side of intersection that direct to these receiving ramps. In
general, because these are not public streets, there isn't a requirement for
ramps that direct north -south across Rosen Drive (only east -west across the
driveway). I would suggest that the connecting walkways between the units be
the locations in which access ramps be provided across Rosen Drive.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The use of the concrete pan along the private drives isn't allowed
to direct concentrated flows across the intersecting public streets. The creation
of concentrated flows would require the pan being directed to one side with a
culvert and metal plate, bringing the flows under the intersecting sidewalk. An
example of this is shown in the following street view link (driveway on the north
side of Autumn Harvest Way, east of Old Mill Road).
www.google.com/maps/@40.5147999,-105.0269518,3a,60y,335.23h,6
7.15t/data=!3m6!1 e1!3m4!1sGfZdXzuUNj2lmd5T_KvpRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i665
Note that our culvert detail now requires the widening of the sidewalk 6 inches
on both sides of the culvert. This detail was already included as D-10B on sheet
40.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The private drives intersecting public streets are required to be
designed and built to LCUASS detail 707.1 or 707.2. Note that single family
attached is considered multi -family for the purposes of LCUASS requirements,
and would call for a 24 foot minimum width instead of 20 feet for the portion in
right-of-way. A 15 foot radius is required per Table 8-1 for the driveways onto
local streets (most cases). A 20 foot radius is required for the Junior Drive
driveway out to Red Willow Drive with Red Willow Drive being a collector.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Junior Drive's intersecting with Stephen Drive is not substantially
at a right angle with the outside curve of Stephen Drive and would need to be
re -worked to provide more of a deliberate turn off of Shaw Drive into Junior
Drive. (LCUASS 9.4.5)
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There's a general note on the street sheets indicating that
transitions are not needed on crowned sections. Public street road designs are
more thoroughly reviewed at time of final plan, but it should be noted that
transitions are required for roadways at intersections per LCUASS details 7-27
and 7-28 (with and without crosspans).
Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The indication with informational signage of the named private
drives being privately maintained will be required. Sheet 4 of the civil set
appears to depict this, however this is reflected on three streets that are actually
public (Rosen, Stephen, and Beachmont). Please have this updated.
Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11 /04/2016: Sheet 4 depicts several striped crosswalks. I'll defer to Traffic
Operations on whether any of these would be acceptable.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The plat can indicate the use of street names on private drives that
are intended to be named.
Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Note that intersection details were not reviewed as it is not
required with a PDP submittal and is required at time of a final plan review.
Flnal plan review would also include additional roadway design information (left
and right flowline plan and profile, curve/line table, etc.)
Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Private drives will not be reviewed for their street design, being
private. The information on the public streets at time of final will require left and
right flowline profiles. It appears there may be issues with K values in some
conditions meeting LCUASS requirements.
3
Comment Number: 20
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The site distance easement triangles are not necessarily viewed
as required by Engineering. If desired however, we have specific sight distance
easement language on the plat that should be added as follows:
sight Distance Easement — The sight distance easement is an easement
required by the City at some street intersections where it is necessary to protect
the line of sight for a motorist needing to see approaching traffic and to react
safely for merging their vehicle into the traffic flow. The following are
requirements for certain objects that may occupy a sight distance easement for
level grade:
(1) Structures and landscaping within the easement shall not exceed 24 inches
in height with the following exceptions:
(a) Fences up to 42 inches in height may be allowed as long as they do not
obstruct the line of sight for motorists.
(b) Deciduous trees may be allowed as long as all branches of the trees are
trimmed so that no portion thereof or leaves thereon hang lower than six (6) feet
above the ground, and the trees are spaced such that they do not obstruct line
of sight for motorists. Deciduous trees with trunks large enough to obstruct line
of sight for motorists shall be removed by the owner.
For non -level areas these requirements shall be modified to provide the same
degree of visibility.
Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Lot 18 through 45 abut the existing Prairie Hill Drive. These lots in
accordance with 24-42 of the City Municipal Code would now inherit
responsibility of maintenance of the existing sidewalk as well as the existing
parkway (unless some sort of agreement is worked out with the HOA for Linden
Park to keep them maintaining the sidewalk and parkway). Discussion with the
Linden Park HOA should be considered. The City will have language in the
development agreement for this project providing notice to Lots 18-45 of their
abutting maintenance responsibilities for Prairie Hill Drive's abutting sidewalk
and parkway under 24-42.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: 1 didn't see a building elevation plan to understand how the units
would be designed to meet parking needs for the project. Are all the units one
car garages (based on the 11' x 24' indication for the garage) along with a
carport, to provide two parking spaces per unit/lot? Will these units also have a
rear door access off of the garage/carport area to meet PFA addressing and
access needs?
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The parking tabulation table indicates 80 on street (public) parking
spaces. It should be noted that public streets parking spaces cannot be used to
meet parking requirements.
4
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Additional comments may be made upon any further refinement of
the site design and engineering components.
Topic: Variance Request
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Stephen Drive and Junior Drive's access onto Red Willow Drive
along with the private drive on Crown on Timberline across the street aren't
meeting our 175 foot separation requirement between driveways and would
require a variance request for review and evaluation. Note that at staff review it
was discussed that the Junior Drive access to Red Willow Drive would be
emergency access only which would negate the need for a variance for Junior
Drive. In some regards, Engineering would rather consider the variance for
Junior Drive and have it open for access vs. the operational management and
design of Junior Drive as emergency access only (we suspect that residents
would look to have this opened to full access) and PFA has indicated that they
do not need this to be emergency access only. If the applicant's engineer is
comfortable with making an argument that the separation requirements are not
a safety issue, then the opening of Junior Drive should be considered.
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: The project owes an additional $4,968.75 for the acreage fee that
was not included in the TDRF PDP calculation.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, rverette@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Thank you for providing a thorough Ecological Characterization
Study for this project. The study satisfies the requirement in Section 3.4.1(D)(1)
of the Land Use Code.
However, it does not appear that any efforts have been made to protect,
enhance, buffer or mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat features on the site,
as required by the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project will impact
approximately 0.5 ac of aquatic area, 0.2 ac of wetland, wet meadow areas,
and significant tree groves. As noted during conceptual review, the
development plan must be "designed and arranged to be compatible with and
to protect natural habitats and features." As proposed, the project neither
protects nor adequately mitigates for the loss of any of the natural features
identified by Ecological Characterization Study.
Please contact me to arrange a separate meeting to discuss how the standards
in section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code will be met with this project. The
Ecological Characterization Study proposes a number of mitigation options,
some of which may be acceptable to staff if they adequately compensate for the
habitat value proposed to be eliminated on the site.
5
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: UTILITY PLANS: The demolition plan needs to show all trees
proposed to be removed with this project.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: UTILITY PLANS: Please add the following note to the demolition
plan to minimize adverse impacts to sensitive natural habitat features: "Pond
area may only be drained and filled during the period of August 1 to January 31
to avoid impacts to migratory birds during the active nesting season."
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: UTILITY PLANS: Please vary the grading of the detention areas to
create a more naturalistic, undulating landform. Side slopes should vary and
range from 4:1 to 20:1, per the Stormwater Standards and Guidelines.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/Detention_Pond_Lands
caping_Standards.pdf
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: LIGHTING: Please submit a photometric plan and manufacturer
cut sheets for all lighting fixtures proposed. As discussed during Conceptual
Review, please consider a warmer color temperature (warm white, 3000K or
less) for any LED light fixtures. Please also consider fixtures with dimming
capabilities so that light levels can be adjusted as needed to ensure
compatibility with adjacent residential areas. Site light sources shall be fully
shielded and down -directional to minimize up -light, light spillage and glare.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: LANDSCAPE PLAN: A tree mitigation plan needs to be included
with the landscape plan set. As discussed at Conceptual Review, an on -site
meeting needs to be arranged with the City Forester and City Environmental
Planner to determine mitigation and protection requirements for existing trees
on the property.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: LANDSCAPE PLAN: Please add the following note to the
landscape plans: "All tree removal shown shall be completed outside of the
songbird nesting season (Feb 1 - July 31) or a survey will be conducted of the
trees to be removed to ensure that no active nests are present."
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: LANDSCAPE PLAN: A detailed planting plan needs to be
included in the landscape plan set to ensure that all landscape requirements
have been met. This should include quantities for the shrubs, grasses and
perennials listed on the planting list.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/03/2016
11/03/2016: A Fugitive Dust Control Permit must be obtained from Larimer
County Environmental Health for development involving:
- land clearing of 5-25 acres;
- land development creating more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance or
exceeding 6 months in duration
M
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Tyler Siegmund, 970-416-2772, tiegmund@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Light and Power has single phase and 3phase electric facilities
East of the site that can be extended to feed this development.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Electric capacity fees, development fees, building site charges
and any system modification charges necessary to feed the site will apply to this
development. Multifamily units are now billed kVA fees. Once power
requirements are known please contact me or visit the following website for an
estimate of the electrical charges and fees:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Due to recent code changes, multifamily buildings are billed and
treated as commercial services; therefore commercial service forms (C-1
forms) and one line diagrams must be submitted to Light & Power for each
building. All secondary electric service work is the responsibility of the
developer to install and maintain from the transformer to the meter bank. A link
to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-
forms-guidelines-regulations
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light &
Power and shown on the plans. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a
drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. Transformers must
also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Electric meter locations will need to be coordinated with Light and
Power Engineering. Each residential unit will need to be individually metered. If
you wish to gang the meters on one side of the building please place on the
opposite side of the gas meters
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Streetlight placement will need to be coordinated with Light &
Power. Shaded trees are required to maintain 40 feet of separation clearances
and ornamental trees are required to maintain 15 feet of separation
clearances from street lights. A link to the City of Fort Collins street lighting
requirements can be found below:
http://www.larimer.org/engineering/GMARdStds/Chl 5_04_01 _2007.pdf
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Light & Power will need AutoCAD files of the approved site plan,
utility plans, and landscape drawings before design of the electric facilities will
begin.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Please contact Tyler Siegmund at Light & Power Engineering if
you have any questions at 970.416.2772. Please reference our policies,
construction practices, development charge processes, and use our fee
estimator at hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlVnxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
10/27/2016: WATER SUPPLY
Hydrants are required on 800ft centers in residential areas and within 400ft of
any individual residential building. The current proposal places Lots 4 through
10 and 80 through 86 out of compliance and another hydrant will be needed on
the west end. Code language provided below.
> IFC 507.5 and PFA Policy: 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.
Comment Number: 2
10/27/2016: FIRE ACCESS
Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
As previously noted, Fire Access is required to within 150ft of all exterior
portions of every structure. As many building are positioned so as to be out of
access from the perimeter public road, every private drive will be required to be
a fire lane in order to satisfy perimeter access requirements. These private
drives will need to be dedicated as Emergency Access Easements (EAE) and
labeled as such on the plat and future plans. Even with every private drive
dedicated as an EAE, portions of the site's west end (along Shaw Drive) and
SW corner appear not to meet perimeter access and further discussion will be
needed. Building footprints may help to better identify the extent of any problem.
Comment Number: 3
10/27/2016: FIRE LANES
Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
The named private drives, Jessie, McKusky, Cranston, Peter and Junior will be
required to be built to Fire Lane specifications as previously noted and labeled
as Emergency Access Easements on the plans. Parking is not permitted at any
time within the limits of a fire lane. No Parking Fire Lane signage will be
required. See Larimer County Urban Streets Standard Diagram 1418. Fire lane
sign locations shall be indicated on future plans. Code language provided
below.
> IFC D103.6: Where required by the fire code official, fire apparatus access
roads shall be marked with permanent NO PARKING - FIRE LANE signs
complying with Figure D103.6. Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12
inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective
background. Signs shall be posted on one or both sides of the fire apparatus
road as required by Section D103.6.1 or D103.6.2.
Comment Number: 4
10/27/2016: TURNING RADII
Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
The street connection at Junior Drive and Red Willow Drive does not meet
standard fire lane specifications as it pertains to turning radii. Code language
provided below.
> IFC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire
apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet
outside.
Comment Number: 5
10/31/2016: GATING OF FIRE LANES
Comment Originated: 10/27/2016
If Junior Drive is required to be access controlled by the traffic department, it will
need to be supplied with an approved gate design. Code language provided
below.
> IFC 503.6: The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access
road shall be approved by the fire chief. Where security gates are installed, they
shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and
the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times.
> IFC D103.5: Gates securing fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all
of the following criteria:
1. The minimum gate width for vehicle access shall be 20 feet.
2. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type.
3. Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one
person.
4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times
and replaced or repaired when defective.
5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire
department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall
be approved by the fire code official.
6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with an unapproved padlock, or
chain and padlock, unless they are capable of being opened by means of
forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the key(s) to the lock is
installed at the gate location.
7. Gate design and locking device specifications shall be submitted for
approval by the fire code official prior to installation.
8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with
UL 325.
9. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and
installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200.
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: ADDRESSING AND WAYFINDING
There is some concern regarding a lack of efficient wayfinding to portions of this
site. When Emergency Services are requested it is very important to be able
find the correct residence quickly and efficiently as possible. In an alley loaded
design, the address number will be required to be posted on both the front and
rear of the building. In cases where alley access is the most effective (or only)
means of finding a particular residence, a man -door (backdoor) may be the
most effective way to facilitate effective access in these instances. Further
discussion will be needed.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: SITE PLAN SCALE
The site plan appears to be designed at a 1 "=50' scale but I could not find a
scale printed on this page.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: Lots 1 —17 appear to arranged such that fronts of units will face
west, along the railroad tracks with the garages fronting on Shaw Drive. Staff is
wondering if this orientation will be accepted by the marketplace. Has any
thought been given to having these lots front onto Shaw Drive instead?
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
If Lots 1 � 17 end up fronting on Shaw Drive, please be aware that garages
must be recessed four feet behind either the front fagade of the ground floor
living area portion of the dwelling or a covered porch (measuring at least 6 x 8
feet). Also garage doors must not comprise more than 50% of the ground floor
street facing linear building frontage. [Section 3.5.2(F)]. Also, please be sure
to account for street trees at intervals no less than 40 feet.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: The south property lines of Lots 16 and 17 adjoin the north (side
yard) property line of 6227 Golden Willow Drive. Please note that this property
line will need some form of treatment in order to establish compatibility.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: For Building 4 (Lots 14 —17), there is no separation from
Buildings 3 and 5.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: Per staff's conceptual review comment number 16, two north -south
walkways need to be provided on the east and west sides of Tract 17 that
connect to the public sidewalks along the two public streets.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: The two east -west connecting walkways out to the north -south trail
should be no less than six feet. Anything less and it feels uncomfortable for
either two people to walk side by side or for two people to pass going in
opposite directions.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: On the Landscape Plan, please indicate that the required street
trees on the north side of Prairie Hill Drive are existing.
10
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: Wherever dwelling units front on a public street, there must be
connecting walkways that link the building entrances to the public sidewalks.
These can be provided as one per unit or in any combination or consolidation or
any variety that may add interest. Perhaps introducing a curvilinear form would
be beneficial.
Comment Number: 9
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: Wherever north -south connecting walkways intersect with the public
sidewalks on either Rosen or Stephen Drives, a flare should be provided.
Comment Number: 10
Comment Originated: 11/02/2016
11/02/2016: Section 3.5.2(C)(2) requires that single family attached buildings
containing more than two units, and where there are more than five buildings,
there must be at least three distinctly different building designs. And, there must
be no two similar buildings placed next to each other along a public street.
Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary in significantly in
footprint size and shape.
Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: Since it is highly unlikely that the building envelopes will vary
significantly in footprint size and shape, the individual design of the three
distinctly different buildings will bear the burden of complying with this standard.
In this case, with 35 buildings, the applicant and design team are encouraged to
exceed the minimum requirement of three. Character elevations will be
required to be submitted and reviewed prior to the public hearing.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: It would be helpful to provide a detail that illustrates the relationship
between the structures and their lot.. For example, similar to a dimensioned
Plot Plan that is required for Building Permit, it would be useful to see a typical
unit, yard, garage and driveway, along with the setbacks, for both interior and
corner buildings. A series of "Lot Typicals" could be provided for the units that
front on the public streets and those that front on the central greens.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: We learned at the review meeting that basements are being
considered. Please be aware of the requirement for egress windows, and
window wells, for basement living areas, particularly bedrooms. In addition,
depending on the amount of floor area that is not devoted to mechanical rooms
and storage, an additional window may be required, although this window may
not need to be capable of providing the required egress. Obviously, for the
interior units, egress windows will be limited to the front elevation only and
rendering the secondary non -egress window impossible. Staff recommends
that the applicant and consulting team meet with Russ Hovland, 970-416-2341
to review these Building Code requirements.
Comment Number: 14
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: Also, be sure that egress windows and window wells are
considered in the utility coordination meeting and must be coordinated with the
requirement from the Fort Collins Loveland Water District for meter pits that
must be located in non -traffic and non -pedestrian areas.
11
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: Please revise the parking table as we do not count tandem
spaces. In other words, if there is a two -car driveway and a two -car garage, that
is counted as two spaces, not four. If there is a two -car garage and no
driveway, that is counted as two spaces. We are not sure what is meant by
"carport" as this term has various meanings. Finally, regarding on -street
parking, Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(b), parking on an internal street fronting on lots
containing single family attached dwellings may be counted to the meet the
minimum parking requirement but only so long as the street is determined not to
connect into an adjoining neighborhood. In this case, on Shaw Drive would
apply.
Comment Number: 16
Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: Regarding Shaw Drive, it appears that, as designed, the east side
will include 10 driveways within a distance of 360 feet. Be sure to allow for
adequate space for street trees which must be planted at no greater than
40-foot intervals. The same comment applies to the west side of Shaw Drive.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 11/06/2016
11/06/2016: In general, and reflecting on earlier comments, staff is concerned
about the arrangement of lots in the southwest corner. Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17
appear to be platted in a manner that is somewhat forced. While geometrically,
on paper, these lots may look feasible, in the field, and after construction of the
houses and garages, these units will look jammed -in and out of character with
the balance of the project. It is difficult to see how these lots will be served with
water, sewer, electric and gas with all their necessary separations. In Staff's
opinion, this area should be opened up, or feature fewer units, to account for the
challenges of the shape of the parcel in this location. Has the applicant and
design team considered creating view corridors in this area? It seems that with
a layout that features narrow lots, attached dwellings and a strong rectilinear lay
out, the overall character of the neighborhood would be improved with an urban
design element, such as a common view to the mountains, versus placing
dwelling units on awkwardly -shaped lots.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 10/11/2016
10/11/2016: 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 do not meet requirements. Please submit; an Erosion Control Plan,
an Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. Also, based
upon the area of disturbance State permits for stormwater will be required since
the site is over an acre. If you need clarification concerning the erosion control
section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam
970-218-2932 or email @ jschlam@fcgov.com
12
Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Off -site drainage easements are required for the outfall of the
north-western detention pond. Before the public hearing, a letter of intent is
required from the off -site property owner to the north.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: The detention ponds need to meet the City's Detention Pond
Landscape Standards. This includes variation in pond side slopes and varying
the overall shape. Retaining walls can be used, but can not be around the entire
perimeter and still need to provide for maintenance access.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: The development is required to meet the City's LID standards.
Currently, the design does not meet these requirements. Rain gardens, sand
filters, and porous pavers are options that have been used in Fort Collins.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: The current design has 5 basins that free release the site and do
not enter a detention pond. These flows will need to be analyzed to see if they
can exit the site without causing a negative impact to adjoining properties. In
either case, these flows needs to be subtracting from the detention pond
release rate so the overall site release rate meets the 2-year historic flows.
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: Coordination needs to take place with the property to the east
regarding the inlet in Red Willow Drive and it's associated piping at the
southeast corner of this site. The storm sewer is planned to pass through the
site's detention area.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 11/01/2016
11/01/2016: This development is required to detain the western half of Red
Willow Drive.
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Storm sewers can not be located within the parkway, which is
where electric is, as well as the street trees.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, (county@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Please revise the Basis Of Bearings as marked. See redlines.
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The legal description on sheet 1 is not necessary. The title &
sub -title serve as a legal description for the project. If you choose to leave it on
the sheet, please make sure that it matches the legal description on the
Subdivision Plat.
Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
13
Comment Number: 11
Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of
January 1, 2015, all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. Please
provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT
format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE,
THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
= NAVD88 - X.XX'.
Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines.
Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There is text that needs to be rotated 180°. See redlines.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
areas. See redlines.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Please make changes as marked. If changes are not made or you
disagree with comments, please provide written response of why corrections
were not made. Please provide any responses on redlined sheets and/or in
response letter.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: A full review will take place when the Plat is submitted following the
City's submittal requirements.
14
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Please remove "Subdivision" from the title. See redlines.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: Please property description shown on sheet 1 is not necessary.
The title & sub -title serve as a legal description. If you choose to leave it on the
sheet, please make sure it matches the legal description on the Subdivision
Plat.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/04/2016
11/04/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016
10/31/2016: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building
permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section
3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation
requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com
Department: Zoning
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcqov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016
10/31/2016: If you are providing guest parking, one of these spaces should be
a van -accessible handicap space.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016
10/31/2016: How will the trash and recycling work?
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016
10/31/2016: The parking numbers are unclear. Please clarify where the spaces
are located.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016
10/31/2016: Do you intend on providing bicycle parking?
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/31/2016
10/31/2016: There seems to be some inconsistencies on the Landscape plan.
Please provide a more detailed landscape plan.
1s