Bestall Collaborative Limited Planning Environment Construction Management Development

Transcription

1 November Ms. Leah Dawson, AICP, Senior Planner City Development Department City of Thornton 9500 Civic Center Drive Thornton, Colorado RE: Case No. Z River Valley Village ODP/CSP Response to Second Review Comments/Redlines Dear Leah. This letter contains specific responses to the City of Thornton and referral agency review comments/redlines for River Valley Village ODP/CSP. A primary topic of the concern related to 45 SFD lots and sight lines. In reference to that topic all SFD lots have 50 wide frontages. Stop signs were added to Clermont Lane, north and south approaches at 96 th Drive; and on eastbound 96 th Drive at Clermont Lane to provide for greater safety and alleviate sight line concerns. We respectfully request that the River Valley Village rezoning be scheduled for public hearing with the City Council as soon as possible. The responses to the comments and redlines are organized in the following outline, beginning with the Current Planning Letter. A. CURRENT PLANNING (CP) LETTER COMMENTS Page 1 B. PLANNING REDLINES ZONING MAP Page 2 C. PLANNING & DE PD STANDARDS REDLINE Page 3 D. PLANNING REDLINES ODP/CSP Page 5 E. STREET NAME REDLINE Page 7 F. DE PLANS TRAFFIC REVISIONS Page 7 G. FIRE LANE SIGNAGE Page 8 H. PLANNING REDLINES PARKING PLAN Page 8 I. TRAFFIC REPORT REDLINE Page 8 J. FIRE DEPARTMENT HYDRANT LAYOUT RESPOSE Page 9 K. DE UTILITY LAYOUT REDLINE Page 9 L. DRAINAGE PLAN 2 ND REVIEW Page 10 M. XCEL LETTER Page 11 Response to Comments A. CURRENT PLANNING (CP) ISSUE LETTER RESPONSE 1. Please provide staff with an update on the Ditch Crossing Agreement with the Colorado Agricultural Ditch Company. Response: We met with Matt Stockton - Colorado Agricultural Ditch Company on November and reviewed the current agreement for River Valley Village. The agreement is acceptable and will be amended to update names, dates, etc. It is also acceptable to place parking within the Ditch Company easement. ( from Matt Stockton attached). 1

2 2. Please provide a detail within the PD depicting the single-family detached (SFD) lot typicals and the single-family attached (SFA) lot typicals to ensure that the products proposed will meet all setbacks, and ensure that cars have sufficient room to park within the driveway without extending onto the sidewalk. Staff has provided a detail for your reference below. After further review of the site, and of the parking plan it was determined that 45 feet wide SFD lots as written within the PD Standards cannot be supported with the current layout. Please revise to a minimum of 50 feet wide SFD lots within the PD Standards. Staff would be in support of 45 feet wide lots if the development proposed some of the following design alternatives: alley loaded products; additional on-street guest parking for the SFD units; or even 12-foot maximum driveway widths as referenced in the detail below. Response: A typical detail for the SFA and SFD lots has been provided within the PD Standards. All lots are 50 wide. City parking standards have been met. 3. Please provide language within the PD relating to maximum driveway widths and lengths for both the SFA and SFD areas as with small lot development there shall be sufficient room to park a vehicle on the street. Response: Language has been provided within the PD Standards identifying maximum driveway widths (18 ) and lengths (20 ) for both the SFA and SFD areas. 4. Please provide a revised parking plan for on-street guest parking with the next submittal. This should account for all driveway cuts, sight-triangles, Fire Department NO PARKING requirements, pedestrian crossings, and ramps throughout the development. The CSP indicates that only one driveway space is needed for SFD lots, however as previously quoted in the last issue letter, SFD homes shall provide four spaces for each dwelling unit, and at least two of these shall be fully enclosed on the lot. SFA dwellings shall have two spaces for each lot, and at least one of these spaces shall be fully enclosed on the lot. Response: A revised parking plan for on-street guest parking has been provided as requested. The plan complies with the City parking requirements. 5. The Code allows lot widths to be smaller at cul-de-sacs but not at eyebrows or knuckle locations. After review of the parking plan, there is not adequate on-street parking if the lots are 45 feet in width in these locations, therefore all lots shall be a minimum of 50 feet in width unless at a cul-de-sac. As previously mentioned, 45 feet wide lots would be permitted if the site accommodated additional areas of on-street guest parking, alley-loaded products, or even tapered driveways. For example, the site could provide for 12-foot maximum driveway widths at the property line and then taper towards the garage as shown below. Response: All SFD lots have 50 wide frontages. 6. Please see additional comments and red-lines contained within the ODP/CSP drawings and within the PD Standards. Response: All comments and redlines contained within the ODP/CSP drawings and within the PD Standards have been responded to and included in this letter. B. PLANNING REDLINES ZONING MAP RESPONSE Sheet 1 1. Add Amendment No. 1 to first line in legal description. 2

3 2. Need to include Clermont Street. Response: Included. 3. Revise south half to south ½ of the southwest one quarter. 4. Revise the southwest one-quarter of said section 18 to said south one-half of the southwest one-quarter of section Delete extra spaces. Response: Spaces deleted. 6. Add the said south one quarter. 7. Correct acreage to Acres Response: Corrected. Sheet 2 1. Add point of beginning. Response: POB added. 2. Where did the name Riverstone at Thornton Fil Correct Acreage to Acres. Response: Corrected. 4. Boundaries on the map should extend 300 beyond property boundary. Response: Boundary revised to include 300 beyond boundary. C. PLANNING & DE PD STANDARDS REDLINE RESPONSE 1. Add Case No. to cover page. Response: Case No. added. 2. Page 1 None 3. Page 2 1.1(a)4 Remove roundabouts. [DE] 4. Page 2 1.1(a)5 Remove metal roof panels. Response: Metal roof panels removed. 5. Page 3 1.2(b) Do not capitalize S in structures. Response: Lower case inserted. 6. Page Delete 2 nd sentence of introductory paragraph. Response: Sentence removed. 3

4 7. Page lot minimums. Response: Lot minimum widths are Page Revise enclosed structure to living space. Response: Revision made. 9. Page Concern about 18 setback and car parking on sidewalk. Response: Setback is from property line which is back of sidewalk driveways are 20 minimum in length adequate for parking without overhanging sidewalk. 10. Page Remove Thornton Parkway and Colorado Blvd add s to the word line. Response: Revisions made. 11. Page Local Public Street (SFD) What are minimum setbacks needed so that vehicles do not overhang sidewalk? [DE] Response: Minimum setbacks are 20 for garage adequate for vehicle not to overhang sidewalk. 12. Page Local Public Street (SFD) Clarify 1/5 and all other labels, fonts for clear readability. [DE] Response: Graphic cleaned-up. 13. Page Local Public Street (SFD) Minimum 60 ROW to include sidewalk. [DE] Response: Understood. Revised. 14. Page Local Public Street (SFD) Revise 6.5 to 6 from FL or 7 from TBC. [DE] 15. Page Local Public Street (SFD) Which curb head used (max ht. 4, mountable curb head 11 results in 6 treelawn). [DE] 16. Page Local Public Street (SFD) Sidewalk minimum width is 5.5. [DE] 17. Page Local Private Street (SFA) 11 curb results in less than 6 treelawn. 18. Page Local Private Street (SFA) Walk should be 5.5 minimum. 19. Page 6 3.1(b)1 Staff will support 60% of the garages setback 2. Response: Revise from 50% to 60% 20. Page 6 3.1(b)3 Delete Staff will not support. Response: Deleted. 21. Page 7 3.1(c)7 Add excluding the stoop. 22. Page 7 3.1(c)8 Add excluding the stoop. 4

5 23. Page 7 3.1(d) Remove metal. Response: Removed. 24. Page 8 3.1(e)3 Stucco should not be considered masonry. Response: Stucco removed. 25. Page 8 3.1(e)4.g. Staff will not support 4 models requesting 5 models, citing other project (Bramming Farm) that has 7 models. Response: The PD Standards remain the same with 4 models. Reducing a lot width from 60 to 50 does not in itself reduce the quality of the architecture or the neighborhood. Providing more than 4 models at River Valley Village will increase the costs for all units. This is not workable at River Valley Village where the market context is different than Bramming Farm. 26. Page 9 None 27. Page (i)3.a. Increase from 1,200sf to 1,500sf. Response: Revised to 1,350sf greater size creates concern for housing diversity. 28. Page (i)3.e. Fix alignments and clarify what enhanced color schemes, nic light shades. Response: Alignments are aligned. Deleted color schemes (from Bramming Farm PD). 29. Page (c)2 Stucco shall not be considered masonry. Response: Stucco is considered masonry treatment according to City Code. 30. Page (c)2.e. Stucco is not a masonry material. Response: Stucco is considered a masonry treatment according to City Code. 31. Page (c)2.e.1. Clarify options. Response: Clarified. 32. Page (e)2 Add excluding stoops. 33. Page (g)4.a. Revise from 1,100sf habitable area to 1,200sf. 34. Page (g)4.d. Can 3 garage doors be accomplished? Response: Deleted. 35. Page (g)6 Roof top screen language revision requested. Response: City language added verbatim. D. PLANNING REDINES ODP/CSP RESPONSE Sheet 1 1. Place a space between Z and Response: Spaced added. 2. Review Parks/HOA and Common Area math - revise. Response: Reviewed and revised. 5

6 3. Insert public land dedication language in item 3 under Subdivision Quality Enhancements. Response: Language inserted. Sheet Revise parking standards to conform to City Code. 2. Move non-city flexibility statement away from City Flexibility Statement language Response: Text relocated. Sheet 3 1. Provide break in fence for pedestrian connection to Colorado Blvd. Response: Break in fence provided and indicated on plan. 2. Please confirm with Ditch Company that parking is permitted within their easement. Response: Ditch Company permits parking within its easement as indicated in the attached letter. 3. Add 6 to describe the height of the project perimeter fences on Thornton Parkway and Colorado Blvd; and the interior privacy fencing not-backing open space in the legend. Sheet 4 1. Provide break in community fence to connect Ditch trail to sidewalk on Colorado Blvd. Response: Break in fence provided and indicated on plan. 2. Extend community fence along full length of Colorado Blvd. Response: Perimeter fence extended full length. 3. Extend fence to northwest corner of Lot 19 in SFD area. Response: Fence extension thru Lot 19 indicated. 4. Lots on eyebrows shall be 50 minimum. Response: Lots on eyebrows are 50 minimum. 5. Revised sight triangle at lot 64 in the SFD area based on DE s comments. Response: Sight triangle adjusted complies with Parking Plan signage. 6. Add designation for open three rail wooden fence to be installed along areas abutting the Colorado Ditch and park/open space. Response: Designation added to plan. 7. Add 6 to describe the height of the project perimeter fences on Thornton Parkway and Colorado Blvd; and the interior privacy fencing not-backing open space in the legend. Sheet 5 1. Add 6 to the description of the height of the project perimeter fences on Thornton Parkway and Colorado Blvd; and the interior privacy fencing not-backing open space in the legend. 6

7 Sheet 6 1. Add 6 to describe the height of the project perimeter fences on Thornton Parkway and Colorado Blvd; and the interior privacy fencing not-backing open space in the legend. Sheet 7 1. Add 6 to describe the height of the project perimeter fences on Thornton Parkway and Colorado Blvd; and the interior privacy fencing not-backing open space in the legend. 2. Extend community fence along full length of Colorado Blvd. Response: Community Fence extended full length. 3. Extend fence to northwest corner of Lot 19 in SFD area. Response: Fence extension thru Lot 19 indicated. Sheet 8 1. Add 6 to describe the height of the project perimeter fences on Thornton Parkway and Colorado Blvd; and the interior privacy fencing not-backing open space in the legend. Sheet 9 1. Add 6 to describe the height of the project perimeter fences on Thornton Parkway and Colorado Blvd; and the interior privacy fences not-backing open space in the legend and with the diagrams. Sheet 10 None. E. RIVER VALLEY VILLAGE STREETNAME REDLINE RESPONSE 1. Revise E. 97 th Way to E. 96 th Way. Response Revised. F. DE PLANS TRAFFIC REVISION RESPONSE Sheet 1 None. Sheet 2. - None Sheet 3 1. Revised ROW on 97 th Ave. at Clermont roundabout. Response: 97 th Ave ROW revised to Private street section. Sheet 4 1. Due to the small lot configuration the applicant will need to demonstrate that each lot affected by the intersection sight triangle is buildable provide exhibits showing the possible building footprint for each lot and the sight triangle. Response: Based on Parking Plan analysis - each lot is demonstrated to be buildable. Diagrams for lots 58 and 68 are attached. 7

8 2. Add raised median at East 96 th Way and Birch Lane. 3. Sight triangles are measured to the center of the approaching travel lane, not the center of the road (TYP). Response: Noted. 4. Show sight triangles. Response: Sight triangles have been shown. Sheet 5 1. Show sight triangles for intersections including private roads. Response: Sight triangles have been added. Sheet 6 1. Show sight triangles at intersections, including private roads and at the existing roundabout. Response: Sight lines have been added. Sheet Show sight triangles for intersections including private roads. Response: Sight lines have been added. Sheet 8 None. Sheet 9 None Sheet 10 - None. G. FIRE LANE SIGNAGE (Code) RESPONSE 1. NO PARKING FIRE LANE signage shall be provided pursuant to the attached River Valley Village Parking Plan. Response: Noted placed on Parking Plan H. PLANNING REDLINES PARKING PLAN RESPONSE 1. Take into account the location of the driveway cuts and widths while indicating off-street parking spaces for the SFD lots. Response: Driveway cuts and widths have been taken into account. 2. Only allows for an 18 driveway and it seems the applicant will request a larger driveway. Response: The onstreet parking locations assume 18 max. driveway widths. 3. Not realistic with lot widths and driveway cuts, please check all eyebrows and knuckles. Response: Lot widths on eyebrows are 50 onstreet parking has been located with this width and driveway cuts in mind. 4. Should not park over pedestrian crossings or ramps. Response: Noted. I. TRAFFIC REPORT REDLINE 8

9 Page 1 - None. Page 2 - None. Page 3 1. Revise diagrams to account for the AASHTO horizontal offset that would result from sight line for the horizontal SSD along radius. The applicant will need to demonstrate that each affected lot is buildable. Using the setbacks provided it the Code/DP provide exhibits showing possible building footprint for each lot and the sight line. Response: The AASHTO horizontal offset and sight lines have been accounted for. 2. Did the Cherry Lane warrant analysis account for traffic from the westside of RVV? This is not clear and will need to be confirmed If Cherry Lane s analysis is to be referenced by this report. Response: Yes, it is clear. The Cherry Lane warrant analysis assumed the buildout of the approved River Valley Village Amendment 1 Plat. The plan as proposed has fewer units. 3. Add minimum to queue in middle of last paragraph and delete will function safely replacing with meet the City s current policy for knuckles. Response: Revisions made. J. FIRE DEPARTMENT HYDRANT LAYOUT RESPONSE 1. Add and locate fire hydrants pursuant to the attached River Valley Village Utility Plan. Response: Fire hydrant locations have been revised to conform to the plan provided. K. DE UTILITY PLAN REDLINE RESPONSE Sheet Provide legend that includes all line types and symbols. Response: All line types and symbols included on Sheets Provide Engineer s (PE) number, signature and stamp. Response: Engineer s name and number provided. Signature and stamp to be provided on construction drawings at time of plat. 3. SFA and SFD. Use appropriate rates, GPD, etc., per CSP 7 people/acre. Response: Noted. 4. School and Community Center Acreage? Response: Provided. 5. What is the basis of the Commercial water flow rate? Response: The commercial flow rate is based on the existing approved Utility Report - the site plan now indicates 600gal/ac/day. This calculation indicates a reduction in overall sanitary sewer flow. Sheet Provide proposed land use and acreage for each planning area. Response: Noted. 9

10 2. Show existing sanitary sewer adjacent to the development and proposed outfall connection point labeled with size, slope and type of pipe. Response: The Sanitary Sewer plans indicate that the SFA area connects to the existing sanitary sewer system at a 4 manhole located in Clermont with an 8 pipe at 5.36% slope. The SFD area connects to the existing sanitary sewer system with the addition of a new 4 diameter sanitary sewer manhole to the existing 8 sanitary pipe at.63% slope. This information has been added to the Utility Plan. Sheet 3 None. Sheet 4 None. Sheet 5 None. Sheet 6 None. L. DRAINAGE PLAN 2 ND DE REVIEW RESPONSE Sheet Provide Vicinity Map, scale (1 =50 horizontal for plans), legend which includes all line types and symbols, revision number and date, name of professional engineer and firm, professional engineer s PE and number, signature and stamp. Response: Current submittal has legend, revision number and date, professional engineer and firm (signature and stamp to be added on construction documents at time of plat). A Vicinity Map has been added. 2. Provide Historic Drainage Plan Sheet. Response: Prior submittal has Historic Drainage Sheet. 3. Existing Contours at two foot intervals. The contours shall extend to all areas which are tributary to this development but at a minimum 300 feet beyond the subdivision boundary. Response: Existing contours are indicated at two foot intervals. We ask that the request to provide additional topography beyond the property at 2 intervals be waived, because a master drainage plan was approved for the entire property in 2002 and reviewed again in 2006; the major detention basis conforming to the approved drainage plan has already been installed (to be landscaped improved with the development of this project) to serve all of River Valley Ranch including this property; and the property is surrounded by existing development including Colorado Blvd on the west, Pine Lakes Ranch on the north, Phase 1 of River Valley Ranch on the east and Thornton Parkway on the south. Sheet Drainage Pattern Sheet requirements: scale 100 to 400 ; existing storm water system to be utilized, labeled with the size, as-built slope and type of pipe, City of Thornton boundary where applicable; proposed major drainage boundaries and sub-boundaries including 100 year flow rates and flow arrows; proposed grading and contours (2 intervals) and flow direction; identification of all off-site improvements; a table with anticipated 100-year flows for each land use, If the land has been included in a previous drainage report, a comparison must be made between the new proposed (anticipated) flows and those identified in the original report. Response: The requirements have been met in the prior submittal with the exception of the following: grading at 2 intervals; 100-year flows for each land use; and a comparison of flows between the previous drainage report and the new/proposed flows have been provided. 10

11 Sheet 3 - None Sheet For comparison please provide corresponding flow rates, not just the components of the flow rates. Response: Corresponding flow rates provided. M. XCEL ENERGY Response: Noted. If you require additional information please contact me. Thank you. Jack Bestall 11