The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED ODP / ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - ODP160001 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)0 c�ty of Fort CoC�ins � _ • -4 - ��-,�� ,.— ,i? ,., � � ( � • -- — — Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Coilins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com/developmentreview September 02, 2016 Kristin Turner TB GROUP 444 MOUNTAIN AVE Berthoud, CO 80513 RE: Gateway at Prospect ODP/APU (Addition of Permitted Use), ODP160001, 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 Summarv: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com Topic: General � � t) % r` � � �� r�s� . i , � � S .� � G�- n c. � Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016 08/30/2016: Per CDOT, they prefer all movements along the Frontage Road to be Right-in/Right-outs. Please contact CDOT with any questions regarding this request. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The ODP has been revised to show Fil/RO's along the Frontage Road. 05/25/2016: More discussion is needed with CDOT to determine if the Right-in/Right-Out movement on the frontage road will be allowed. RESPONSE: A response was provided with the last submittal package (8.15.16). Please confirm if you need additional information or if this comment is considered `resolved'. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/30/2016 08/30/2016: The APU Exhibit 1 shows ROW for the collector road as 66'. A minor collector with parking is 76' ROW, which is what the ODP is showing. In either case, the ODP should not list an actual width, in the case the ROW width for that street classification changes. RESPONSE: The ODP has been revised and the width has been removed. A potential range has been shown on the APU exhibit with a note that states that the width is subject to change with future design 1 • and/or changes to standards. Department: Light And Power Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcqov.com Topic: General • Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/09/2016 05/09/2016: New development and system modification charges may apply. A link to our online electric fee estimator is below. http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen t-development-fees/electric-development-fee-estimator?id=3 RESPONSE: A response was provided with the last submittal package (8.15.16). Please confirm if you need additional information or if this comment is considered `resolved'. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/09/2016 05/09/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the transformer and electric meter locations. Please show these locations on the utility plans. Transformers need to have an 8' frontal and 3' side/rear clearance. It also has to be 10' within a drivable surface and cannot be located under the drip zone of any trees. Please reference our Electric Construction, Policies Practices & Procedures to ensure requirements and policies are met. http://www.fcqov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers RESPONSE: A response was provided with the last submittal package (8.15.16) need additional information or if this comment is considered `resolved'. Comment Number: 3 Please confirm if you Comment Originated: 05/09/2016 05/09/2016: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-fo rms-guidelines-regulations RESPONSE: A response was provided with the last submittal package (8.15.16). Please confirm if you need additional information or if this comment is considered `resolved'. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/09/2016 05/09/2016: Power is available along the frontage road. RESPONSE: A response was provided with the last submittal package (8.15.16). Please confirm if you need additional information or if this comment is considered `resolved'. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/31/2016 08/31/2016: City street lighting will.have to be installed along public streets. A 40 feet separation on both sides of the light is required between shaded trees 2 and streetli hts. • feet se aration on both sides of the li ht i• uired 9 p 9 Q between ornamental trees and streetlights. RESPONSE: Acknowfedged. Department: Park Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016 . � . Carried Over: Please add a note to the O.D.P. that states multiple spurs will be provided from the future development to the regional trail and indicated at the time of submittal for a Project Development Plan on a per phase basis. RESPONSE: ,� note has been added (General Notes #10). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016 Carried Over: Please indicate, by note if necessary, that the public neighborhood park will be connected to the regional trail. RESPONSE: Access from the neighborhood park to the regional trai! �vili be provided via tra{I spurs andlor sidewalks within the nublic local sfreet ROW. Please reference General Notes #10. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.orq Topic: General Comment Number: 10 08/30/2016: REMOTENESS Comment Originated: 08/30/2016 The fire marshal, has concerns that one of the only two planned access points into the area is affected by a proposed floodway. There are secondary concerns over the limited separation distance between the two access points. This condition may be overcome with increased connectivity to surrounding areas as the overall site develops, but it is currently unclear where that potential lies with the connection to E Locust no longer being proposed. Code language provided below. RESPONSE: Per an email from Jim Lynxwiler on 9.13.16, the fire marshall has determined that the two access points meet minimum separation requirements. He is not requiring the proposed roundabout on the Frontage Road or the connection on Prospect to be moved or otherwise modified. > IFC D104.3 & D107.2: Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. RESPONSE: Per an email from Jim Lynxwiler on 9.13.16. tne #ire marshall has determined that the two access points meet minimum separation �eGuirements. Department: Planning Services 3 • Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 • Comment Originated: 05/25/2016 � � _•�� -�- . • Carried Over: Since the initial submittal, the parties have met with Parks Planning regarding the future Boxelder Regional Trail. Please indicate the extent to which the A.P.U. parcel will be connected to this Regional Trail. And, Please clearly label the Boxelder Regional Trail (as a conceptual alignment). RESPONSE: Access from the neighborhood park to the regionai trail will be provided via trail spurs and/or sidewalks within the public local street ROW. Please reference General Notes #10. The regional trail label ---- -._ has been revised. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016 (1G/7�/7lliR•Cinno 1F�o ci4o ovnoei-!� A(1 �nroc �ho I_�A_AI �nno reniiiroe ii�o � ■ � � � . � •� �� _� � ■ � � � Carried Over: If the intention is to satisfy the L-M-N neighborhood on a parcel �r�� ' that is not zoned L-M-N, please either graphically indicate or state by note (or .- both) that such a center will be within three-quarter of one mile of 90% of the homes in L-M-N. You may also want to indicate the proximity to the homes in the U-E as well. RESPONSE: A note has been added (General Note #11). Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016 . . .. _..• .�,�,.�,:a - �+n �+mnnrimon� nf In�nrei��o I�nrio 11A�c4er Dl�n LfTiliiiGiiii"viii vi iiii'viv�i.i�"v �w::c.:v :v::.:�:v• . .�.... Carried Over: The O.D.P. can still be called Gateway at Prospect. The title just needs to be supplemented (sub-titled) as an Amendment to Interstate Lands O.D.P., just like we title replats with new names. RESPONSE: The plans have been updated. We are calling it Gateway at Prospect Overall Development Plan with a sub-title: As Amended to Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. � '� �L .� � .." .� � � _ � M - . ',y _ ✓�� Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated h , ��,17'(��'�. Ac nrnnnoorl 4he� rnniiocl ie oc��e�n�i'+Ilv tn �+rlrJ �+ nnhinn nf �+n .,v...� u�v � vyuvv. �v �..'vv� i u�r av a�ar�m��o^^o^�p^��«��6C?f�r�� I�V2I 9�PRSi+`r�ll1zrr��izvr^t��r� ,"T.n.�anzc^rr�''r `u-ci�iT�crf2-6^pec+Iflvv��F&r^r^�f�Vivecvf-1 �k}e-v:�.�-��Trc2� +� Lnnw }ho ev4en} }�e ��},� }ho ni imhoro nf hi iilr�inne i ini4� �+nro�+no ��i+hin fFia .,,..��y .��., ......a, .��.� ��.��.,.��., r � � .. I_AA_I�I nt�rtinn nf ti�o m� il�i_f�milv nrnion+ cn �uo n�n een hro�i �ho I 6A nl i� hc�inn imn�nfarJ �nr! hn�►i �F�i� nmm��roc/nnn4r��4� �n +he I_I1A_AI m�+vimi �m �+Ilnuv+nnn ,., �.., ,.. , ..,,, ,, ,,,, ,,,,, , , r,,,, �.,, ...,,, ,,, �.,,,, ,� �� .r . Fe�-e��m� , ^��, �+I�ir��s an��el�g �i#� . „� +„ �.,,,,., �.,h�r.h ",.,o +�,o nl� ihhni ico/omoni4�i �ro� i� in Darh�n� 1ho mi �Iti_f�+milv nhn .�I.,.. .. .�..I� �.J.. +L,.. -snno r�lie4rin+ lino Carried Over: On sheet 2, there are portions of Parcel k, zoned E, that are labeled as APU Parcel. Please delete this reference as the APU applies only to Parcel j which is zoned L-M-N. RESPONSE: The APU labeis in the E bubbles have been removed. � � ,n ,t; , rt�- }�ti C 06/17/2016 _ � Y�� _ � - � i Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 06/17/2016 �`(�7��: q Dlo�ce nl�rifv �ho ei�e �nri rion�ii�i nf 4Fio •+n�+rFmon4 nmm�lov �.,., .,,.,, ,, � ., ,� ,,,�., �.., ,.. .." ,�,.y � a�Ee�-Es �9:�-er 1�4?-Hew �e�e�+�era�e-��. �^m 7n Q7 �n r�n�ormininn }ha rlonei��i �ra �ini i fnlln��inn fho roni iiremnn4c nf Con�inn Q G� 1 R Qaeirlon�i'+I � . . fl�$' i i`�In� il�}innc�7 Carried Over: I estimate the density to be 16.45 d.u./gross acre on the L-M-N portion of the multi-famil ro'ect. Need to clarif . RESPONSE: Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 06/17/2016 .. m . . •. .. , . . -. , .. � , , , ,. . Carried Over: It would interesting to note if there are any agricultural activities in Boxelder Estates (or any properties along the western edge). For example, are there any fields under cultivation? Are large animals being fed or grazed? Is there a dairy farm? Are there any barns or large out-buildings that house typical _ agricultural activities? �'� � �'- � '- RESPONSE: We have driven through the site approximate from Summit View to the boundary between Boxelder Estates and Gateway at Prospect. W� ' bserved any farming activities and believe the development within Boxelder Estates consists ranchette rather than operational agricultural activit�es. Comment Number: 38 -" :-�--� ��„ Comment Originated: 06/17/2016 ._ . , , • ,� • • � Carried Over: See redlined narrative. �ESPONSE: Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 06/17/2016 �- � - - -- - . �• ,,, Carried Over: Has the applicant considered lowering the height of the most northwest building due to its proximity to the existing house to the west? ;�� '�� RESPONSE: We have considered the proximity of the nearest existing house to the schematic location of the northwest building and feel that the current buffer is appropriate to the height of the building. Since the multi-family layout is schematic, the exact location and design of the building could also potentially change in the future. Comment Number: 49 Comment Originated: 06/17/2016 ,_ . _ _ , . „, Carried Over: Let's discuss the format and graphics on how best to depict and explain the various A.P.U. parameters. RESPONSE: Plans have been updated based on rediines provided. �' Comment Number: 50 Comment Originated: 08/31/2016 08/31/2016: Per Section 3.6.5, please indicate a Transit Stop location on Parcel k along Prospect Road RESPONSE: Per Emma Belmont, Transit Planner, the long range plan doesn't suggest they will service this area so they are not currently requiring a transit stop location. We are aware that they are in the process of updating their plan and it is likely that this may become a requirement at the time of PDP or ✓ FDP. Comment Number: 51 Comment Originated: 08/31/2016 08/31/2016: Please label the Boxelder Regional Trail. Also, please indicate a spur(s) to this trail from the A.P.U. Parcel j. RESPONSE: The Boxelder Regional Trail has been labeled. The exact locations of trail spurs are not known at this time so it has not been depicted graphically, but a note has been added to the plans (General C� • Note #? 0) thai they wiEl be provided. �.� Comment Number: 52 Comment Originated: 08/31/2016 08/31/2016: Is the north-south street on the west edge of Parcels f and j a collector street? If so, please label accordingly and note that this would be a Minor Collector (R-O-W varies) which allows on-street parking. RESPONSE: This street was noted as a coliector in our previous submittai. Tne ROW designatior, has been removed as it will be determined at PDP. Comment Number: 53 Comment Originated: 08/31/2016 08/31/2016: As we have discussed, the site is somewhat isolated relative to the balance of the City due to existing development, Poudre River floodplain and natural areas (Prospect Ponds). In order to provide a better connection to the west, staff recommends that a sidewalk be constructed between the project and the intersection of Prospect and Summitview. This will allow a connection to the existing sidewalk along Prospect Road that ties back to the west and the Poudre River trail. �,, �. �. 3 _ �, . � � � j � ^ �� RESPONSE: Due to the fact that this sidewalk would not be located on our proper�y and we do not currently know if there is adequate right-of-way, etc. we do not believe it is appropriate to include any notes on the ODP or APU pertaining to this sidewalk. The owners of Gateway at Prospect will conti-�;:e to v��c�rk with Staff regarding the potential, future sidewalk as more information becomes available. Comment Number: 54 Comment Originated: 08/31/2016 .. 08/31/2016: Has the applicant explored any possibilities to work with Boxelder �� ;J�, ��-� Estates to enhance their private buffer? Perhaps with irrigation supplied by the � project, enhanced landscaping could be provided in this area? RESPONSE: The owners of Gateway at Prospect have been in contact with the Boxelder Estates HOA regarding the buffer area. We will continue to work with them as we mov2 forward with the entitlement of the site. Comment Number: 55 Comment Originated: 08/31/2016 08/31/2016The APU analysis with the four neighborhoods is very good (Exhibit 2). Staff recommends that it could be further supplemented by showing a contrast with neighborhood(s) that do not include a multi-famity component. For example, perhaps the point could be made that a subdivision like Maple Hill, which was approved as a City Plan L-M-N project, lacks the housing choice and diversity evidenced by four examples and Gateway at Prospect. Since Maple Hill was developed, we have received feedback that it lacks the range of housing for a variety of income levels that are found in subject project and the four examples. : RESPONSE: Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/30/2016 08/30/2016: DIMENSION EXHIBIT: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. RESPONSE: All text has been masked. Topic: Site Plan • r� • Comment Number: 1 � Comment Originated: 05/25/2016 08/30/2016: ODP: Is this going to be cailed Gateway At Prospect or Interstate Land? Choose a name, and change all titles to match. 05/25/2016: ODP: This is not amending the "Gateway At Prospect" ODP. If the title is not changed, please add "Amending Interstate Land ODP" to the title. RESPONSE: The title has been revised to `Gateway at Prospect Overali Development Plan/An Amendment to the Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan'. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016 08/30/2016: ODP: Is this going to be called Gateway At Prospect or Interstate Land? Choose a name, and change all titles to match. 05/25/2016: ODP: We suggest adding a larger title to the top of the sheets. RESPONSE: The title has been revised to 'Gateway at Prospect Overall Development Plan/An Amendment to the Interstate Lands Overali Development Plan'. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016 05/27/2016: The TIS has been reviewed and provides a good starting point for further discussions. We are awaiting CDOT review and once complete, will coordinate a meeting to discuss further. RESPONSE: A response was provided with the last submittal package (8.15.16). Please confirm if you need additional information or if this comment is considered `resolved'. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016 8/30/16: Please note that the ODP Master Traffic Study identified numerous needed improvements. The timing for these improvements will be will be identified through subsequent detailed traffic studies for each phase. 05/27/2016: The TIS lists'future' geometry, but doesn't clearly indicate what improvements the development should expect to install with each (or at least the first) phase. RESPONSE: A response was provided with the last submittal package (8.15.16). Please confirm if you need additional information or if this comment is considered `resolved'. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016 05/27/2016: Please check the analysis and Level of Service of the Frontage Road/Prospect intersection. The TIS reflects a LOS A, when in reality that intersection creates up to a 1/2 mile EB queue almost daily. RESPONSE: A response was provided with the last submittal package (8.15.16j. Please confirm if you need additional information or if this comment is considered 'resolved'. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016 05/27/2016: The collector level internal street network would be helpful to discuss a bit more, and identify the classification (and cross section) expected with the road network. 0 RES�ONS� „ res onse was rovided with the last submittal � 1.1 �! �I �{�� i�� p p pac age �� 5�; � ease �or��rr�, f,�U � �.rt +� . , �C ��,^ ��"'"' I r � ^C n�� p� nEed �d�+iiion�; ��c�rr�,�.a�;on e. if th�„ ��;.;ment �s �or�..idere�u �res.. v..��. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016 The site will be served water by Elco. Please contact Mike Scheid, 493-2044 for further information. The will be served sewer by Boxelder. Please contact Brenda Price, 498-0604 for further information. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. �