HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOYOTE RIDGE NATURAL AREA PARKING LOT EXPANSION - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-06-02COMMENTS FROM JULY 19 MEETING (EARLIER VERSION OF DRAWING):
Zoning
Contact Info: Gary Lopez, 416-2338, glogezCdfcgov.com
1. Coyote Ridge: This project is in POL where expanding the parking lot is an
acceptable use and would need to go through only a minor amendment
process through through the Zoning Department.
Engineering
Contact Info: Marc Virata, 221-6605 ext. 7188, mvirata(&fcgov.com
Coyote Ridge: Per the Land Use Code, the property owner is responsible for
frontage improvements adjacent to the site. Further discussion should take
place regarding design requirements and construction (or funding) of public
street improvements.
2. Utility plans may be required for one or more of these projects. Please
contact me before submitting.
3. Contact Matt Baker with regards to applicability of street oversizing fees.
Stormwater Utility
Contact Info: Glen Schlueter, 221-6700, gschlueter(a)fcaov.com
1. The Coyote Ridge natural area is in the Fossil Creek drainage basin where
the new development fee is $2,274.00/acre which is subject to the runoff
coefficient reduction. This fee is to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued. Reservoir Ridge is not on the Stormwater basin maps.
2. A drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required
and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado.
3. Onsite detention is required with a 2 year historic release rate for water
quantity, and extended detention is required for water quality treatment.
These are required if there is an increase in imperviousness greater than
1000 square feet. If there is less than 1000 but more than 350 square feet
of new imperviousness a site grading plan is all that is required.
4. The Coyote Ridge natural area is on inventory map 3U.
Current Planning
Contact Info: Anne Aspen, 221-6206, aaspen@fcgov.com
1. Aside from the paving issue that is dealt with above, the main issue brought
up at conceptual review was landscaping requirements. I said that a
modification would be necessary, but on looking at the issue more closely, I
see no reason you would have to do that. Section 3.2.1 (N) of the Land Use
Code indicates the procedure and criteria for alternative compliance which
this issue would certainly fall under. This means that the application would
be submitted as usual with landscape plans following submittal guidelines.
To show how the plans better accomplish the purposes of the section, the
plans will simply need to be annotated to show how they achieve the listed
criteria.