HomeMy WebLinkAboutCASA GRANDE PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31CASA GRANDE P.U.D.
STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES
The proposed plan for Casa Grande P.U.D. (formerly Wagon Wheel 3rd
Filing) achieves many of the City's planning codes. Some salient
features of the project include:
1. The project is in accordance with the City's master
street plan, open space plan, the area master drainage
plan and with all affected utility plans.
2. The plan proposes development of 134 attached condo-
minium units designated as an "adult community" with
sales targeted at the elderly market. A condominium
association will be established for perpetual mainten-
ance of landscaping common areas, buildings, driveways
and parking areas.
3. A community meeting and recreation building will be
included in the first phase of construction.
4. The project is contiguous to existing single family
developments at more than 60 percent of its perimeter.
5. Care has been exercised in building siting and land-
scaping to mitigate adverse visual impacts on the sur-
rounding neighborhood.
6. The entire 20+ acre property is served from a single
dedicated city street with private driveways serving
the individual units. This represents a considerable
on -going savings to the City in cost of street main-
tenance.
-- Utilities have been designed and laid in
accordance with the existing street design.
-- Design speed would become a critical factor if
the street were lined with parked cars and traffic was
such that two vehicles were to meet on the curves. The
likelihood of this occurring is highly remote. At the
wept horizonal curve (Phase 1), there is considerable
off-st:r•eet parking provided near• the residential units
and near the community building. At the east horizontal
curve (Phase 3), there is a large passive open space
provided on the west side of Laredo Lane, which is not
likely to generate on -street parkers, and the
residential units on the east side of Laredo have
considerable off-street parking provided. Therefore,
vehicles travelling through these curves are not likely
to encounter extensive on -street parkers and, as such,
will be able to use more of the street which will
ostensibly increase the design speed of the curve.
-- Since Laredo Lane may be perceived as being a
"short: cut" from Casa Grande to Hickok, the 25 mph will
make this "short cut" less attractive. The development
on each side of Laredo Lane is geared toward elderly
home -owners. It is the desire of the developer not to
encourage through trips on Laredo Lane.
Concern was expressed about the width of Seneca
Street: as it proceeded south from the Hickok/Oregon
Trail intersection. As part of their continuing
responsibility for street construction in the Wagon
Wheel Subdivision, it is Melody Homes' responsibility to
construct a number of streets. In fact, Melody Homes
has constructed the curb and gutter• on both sides of
Seneca from Hickok/Oregon Trail south approximately 380
feet to the south property line of the Wagon Wheel
Filings. This curb and gutter provides for a 36 foot
street: which is the standard width of a local street.
The Fort Collins Master Street Plan does not classify
Seneca Street. Therefore, unclassified streets are
considered to be locals. The Fort Collins Staff has
said that perhaps Seneca should be a collector. The
standard collector street width is 50 feet. Seneca only
serves; the Wagon Wheel Subdivision and the proposed
Kingstown PUG to the south. All streets intersecting
Seneca within Wagon Wheel are 36 feet wide (Hickok,
Oregon Trail, and Sam Houston Circle). Casa Grande
Boulevard is built to 44 feet and connects Shields (an
arterial) and Dunbar (a collector). Casa Grande i=_more
likely to function as a collector than is Seneca. Based
upon projected traffic volumes and its place in the
street: network in the area, Seneca functions as a local
Therefore, parked cars on Seneca Street are likely to be
few, and spaced such that the street wi11 be able to
function to its full 36 foot width.
Given the above analyses, it is requested that the
width of Seneca remain at 36 feet adjacent to Casa
Grande PUG.
This memorandum has provided additional information
regarding the 25 mph posted speed on Laredo Lane and the
recommended width of Seneca Street from Hickok/Oregon
Trail to the south.
Gnmu
GER20H ASSOCIATES INC.
ARCHITFCTS/PLANNERS
E
othills Pkwy
{ns, to 80525
-7335
June 26, 19135
Mr. Joe Frank
Senior Planner
Office of Community Development
City of Fort Collins
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Joe:
RE: PREVIEWS PRELIMINARY P.U.D. TRACTS B AND C
Project 83-370
Owing to the sluggish market conditions of the last few years, and
on behalf of the owner, Craig Platt, we would like to request one -
years extension of the Preliminary P.M. approval for Tracts B
(Apartments) and C (Neighborhood Service Center and Retail/Commer-
cial) at Pineview on Shields Street.
It is the intention of the owner to submit a revised Preliminary
P.U.D. of Tracts B and C before the end of the year.
We hope that this item can be heard at the July Planning and Zoning
Board meeting, and I have enclosed ten (10) copies of Sheet 1 of 3,
dated 7-13-83, for your use.
Sincerely,
GEFROH ASSOCIATES INC.
Ton Hughe�`
kam
enc.
cc: Rock Sorensen
May 31, 1991
Project No: 10OS-01-B5
Susan Hayes
City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Utility
P.D. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado B0522
loaa
.�r
£ SHEAA
ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
ORAIROR
Re: Casa Grande P.U.D. Detention Pond #2, Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Susan,
Shear Engineering Corporation has reviewed the current as -constructed Casa
Grande P.U.D. Detention Pond #2 data. Field data was supplied by Frederick
Land Surveying. The data was gathered on Thursday, May 30, 1991. Our
review of existing conditions indicate the following:
1. Generally, the current pond configuration and associated drainage
improvements perforce adequately for the improvements made to date. The
pond and outlet function in substantial conformance with the drainage
design intent.
2. The pond requires (on average) approximately 12" of additional
excavation over the entire area of the base of the pond to achieve the
desired detention capacity and conform to all original design
considerations. This will be performed at a later date in conjunction
will final grading for individual units.
?. The south/southeast slope and the westernmost slope of the pond
require further shaping and final grading. We expect the south slope
to be formed with the final grading around Building G, which has just
been completed. West pond slope shaping and final grading can also be
done at this time. The southeasternmost slope will likely be completed
with final grading for Building H, which has not been started as of
the date of this letter.
A copy of the current detention pond #2 configuration and existing
contours, relative to the original grading plan, is attached to supplement
this letter. Though the pond requires further attention, the design intent
has been achieved. We understand that further pond verification may be
required once final grading and shaping of the pond is performed.
If you have any questions concerning D
226-53134. _ n
Sincere
Shear Engineering Cc
Brian W. Shear, P.E.
BWS:so
cc: Dave Stringer
Leo Schuster
Frederick Land Surveying
please call at
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (303)226-5334
Develo—rent Services
Enginee—ig Department
June 17, 1991
Mr. Leo Schuster
Progressive Living Structures
4190 Garfield Avenue
Loveland, CO 80537
RE: Casa Grande P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Schuster:
On Tuesday June 11, 1991, Glen Schlueter and I met to discuss the letter from
Shear Engineering concerning the storm drainage issues for the Casa Grande P.U.D.
After discussing Mr. Shears letter and reviewing the approved utility plans, I
visited the site and found the following items need to be addressed prior to the
City releasing any further Certificates of Occupancy for this development.
1. Revise the overall grading and drainage plans to show the existing concrete
pan adjacent to Laredo Lane and building Pad D, show the 12 inch ADS pipe in
its correct location from Tract 1 to the detention pond, including inlet and
outlet invert elevations.
2. Rough grade the detention pond bottom and side slopes to comply with the
plans.
3. Regrade the area from the concrete pan under walk drain through Tract 1 to
the ADS pipe. For your information I have enclosed copies of two
photographs which show the erosion which has already occurred as the water
tries to make its way to the detention pond.
4. Prior to the release of any Certificate of Occupancy for building H the pond
and associated drainage facilities are to be built in its entirety, and
these areas are to be certified by a professional engineer.
As this development has been in varying stages of development now for several
years, it is the City's desire that the storm drainage be completed as soon as
practical per the approved utility plans. With the completion of`these
facilities and with the City's acceptance of their construction the storm
drainage then becomes the responsibility of the Home Owners Association.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6605
Mr. Leo Schuster
June 17, 1991
Page Two
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and if you have any questions,
please call me at 221-6605.
Sincerely,
I
2
David Stringer
Chief Construction Inspector
DS/ltg
cc: Glen Schlueter
.MU6LA { � 1, 177i
Mr. Terry xeyne
Progressive Living Structures, Inc.
4190 N. Garfield
Loveland, CO, "38
Dear Terry:
John and his crew have been working hard to complete the landscaping in the
front and rear of the new 4-plex, and I know the two current and soon -to -be
residents appreciate the more "finished" look.
I was asked about widening the deck for 3448-B, and the Board sees no problem
with that. Dan discussed with me the location for air conditioners in units
B and D. Cf course, there is really no problem for an end unit, but there
is unanimous Board agreement for putting compressors in front for the center
units* We all thank you for including input from the Board on these matters.
As for the greenbelt in front of 3500 and 3460.. the crew has done much to
fill in the excess -rain caused gullies, the spots where the grass seed did
not take hold, and to improve the drainage - especially towards the east end;
however, there is still standing water in many locations from the end of the
concrete section of the drain to about the center of the greenbelt, I know
that Dan said there was a four inch drop, and John also feel there is a drop,
but almost everyone here who looks at it sees a slight rise. There has to be
some explanation as to why hours after the sprinklers have run, residue water
still remains. Perhaps a re -shooting will solve the mystery; therefore, next
time you are up here, please take a close look at this area, and ask Dan to
set up the transit and measure the drop every few feet' so that we can get this
issue behind us and get the water where it should go.
Your earliest consideration of this request will be appreciated so that if
adjustments need to be made, John can attend to them before he returns to
classes on the 26th. t;
r\ ' ,A
North of Laredo s
front of Roush s 1 88 3A
front of zvans ; 117
I
�I
v
V
Sincerely
A. L. Grant, Jr.
August 16, 1991
Project No: 10OS-01-85
Glen Schlueter
City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Utility
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: Casa Grande P.U.D. Detention Pond #2, Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Mr. Schlueter,
Shear Engineering Corporation has made final observations regarding the
Casa Grande P.U.Q. Detention Pond #2. Our final observations were made on
Tuesday, August 6, 1991. These oservations were made to determine that our
concerns mentioned in our letter of May 31, 1991 had been addressed and if
the concerns in the letter to Leo Schuster from Dave Stringer, Chief
Construction Inspector for the City of Fort Collins, had been addressed.
The following responses are in the order of the item of Dave Stringer's
letter:
1. Grading and drainage plans have been revised to show the existing
concrete pan and the actual location of the ADS pipe.
2. The detention pond bottom and sideslopes have been graded to our
satisfaction. The pond substantially conforms to the plan.
�. The erosion situation on Tract I between the concrete pan under the
walk and the ADS pipe to the pond, has been corrected.
4. As constructed drawings of the pond are being submitted in conjunction
with thI.s letter.
Generally, Detention Pond #2 and associated drainage appurtenances have
been constructed in substantial conformance with the Grading and Drainage
plan and the approved drainage report. This letter is serves as our
Engineer's Statement, as the Engineer of record, that Detention Pond #2
and associated drainage appurtenances have been constructed in substantial
conformance with the Grading and Drainage plan.
The pond is currently being landscaped. Additional erosion control
suggested by this office has been provided. Seeding will be completed when
the weather allows.
If you have any questions concerning Detention Pond #2, please call at
226-523 4.
Sincere ���!D0 REGiST
•
.Q •
Shear Engineering Corporation
20262
Brian W. Shear, P.E. ;
BWS : s o '',��9o�FSS10NAl 0000
111�1�V
cc: Dave Stringer
Leo Schuster
Frederick Land Surveying
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (303)226-5334
^
TO: Gary DIEDE / CFC52/01
M*rc ENGE|1OEN ./ �FC52/01
Dave STRIN�ER / CFC52/01
Part 2.
/
Ann 4z*ri called today wzth a complaint f/om D'�n Wilkerson - phone 225-9039.
He li'es at t!e Casa Grande condos aod apparently in the area there is
a d`'aznaqe problem where wa�er h�s been s�andi/.g �or quite awhile.
�e sa�d he |�ad bee.� io contact with Dave Stringer but that Dave has neve`
come n''� �p ionk �t t!`e area. Could somenne find the time tn call Mr
cw that someone will be out (If this is NOT `
�o E'.1ioenr�n7 p/blem b,`t � storm grainage probiem^could yo: coordinate
lg
�nd of Item 1'
/
�
/yy.�� //�/
. \�
�� [��S 7�4
.��~��"�.+� ���,c~-.._- ._~-^^. `
14
7. 46 percent of the site (gross) has been dedicated to
landscaping and open space. 171 percent of this is
"active open space". All units front on either streets
or active open space. A significant sidewalk system
connects units to common facilities and open spaces.
8. Adequate guest parking spaces are provided with land-
scape buffers to living units and open areas.
9. Landscape buffering is provided at south and east prop-
erty lines.
0 C T 2 1991
EngineGring inept.
October 19, 1991
Mr. Dave Stringer
Engineering Department
281 N. College
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Dear Mr. Stringer
Re: Improper drainage at Casa Grande Condominiums.
Several months ago I contacted you about a drainage problem in two
areas on this property. You checked the PUD requirements and in-
formed me that the builder had agreed to certain conditions and
that these problems would have to be corrected before he could
obtain a certificate of occupancy for the next building.
Subsequent to this meeting you were supplied with color photos
showing -the problems. In the case of the East driveway entrance
off of Laredo Ln. one photo clearly showed a considerable amount of
ice over the driveway last winter. Nothing further will be done
about correcting this.
The problem of drainage through the lawn area from the sidewalk
down through the holding pond South of the clubhouse has not been
solved. There is a 21" plus drop from the sidewalk to the lower
drain, however the first several feet from the sidewalk does not
have enough slope to drain the upper portion. Water stands there
all the -time.
Either your survey crew or the Storm Drainage crew came out and
checked the drop. Sure enough it coincides with that of the builder.
Their report indicated that the drop meets the PUD requirements.
How ludicrous can they get when they can see water standing in the
area mentioned!
Someone from the Storm Drainage department stated that there is
nothing they can do with the builder since this is on private
property„ REALLY! What difference does it make whether it is
private or commercial property? If the PUD requirements have no
validity then why have them at all? It appears that this is just
another way of doing "busy work". And, the builders can do anything
they want and know that they can get by with it. They continue
receiving; the certificates of occupancy regardless.
Si el
Don R. Wilkerson
cc: Bob Smith, Storm Drainage
Susan Kirkpatrick, Mayor
Ann Atari, Assistant Mayor
Develo, •ent Services
Engineering Department
October 31, 1991
Mr. Don Wilkerson
3449 Laredo Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80526
RE: Drainage at Casa Grande Planned Unit Development
Dear Mr. Wilkerson:
The intent of this letter is to reiterate the City Storm Water Utility and
Engineering's position as it relates to the drainage in the Casa Grande
development. As I discussed earlier with you and Mr. Grant, the drainage
facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and the
Developer's Engineer has provided the City with a letter of certification for the
same. Even though the system does not function as efficiently as it could, the
developer has complied with the applicable City requirements. Therefore, we can
not pursue this ,matter any further.
In response to your comments concerning the ice over the east driveway last
winter, I believe this has been addressed with the construction of the drainage
Swale and lot landscaping improvements adjacent to 3424 Laredo Lane. It was the
intent of the original design to build a low area into the driveway which will
allow the surface water to collect at this point, then flow into the detention
pond west of 3424 Laredo Lane. It is my belief that what is constructed is what
was intended by the design engineer. There may still be some accumulation of ice
during the winter months at this point, but it should be less then last year.
Apparently, there is some misunderstanding about planned unit developments as
they relate to Storm Drainage improvements. The intent of a P.U.D. is to allow
a developer more flexibility in the utilization and design of a property for
development, allowing for more freedom in the overall scope of a project. Most
P.U.D. drainage facilities are not maintained by the City and are built on
private instead of public property. The City still monitors P.U.D. construction
and requires the design engineer's certification that the minimum needed
improvements have been built in accordance with the approved plans. But once the
improvements are in place, and are constructed as per plan, concerns about
inconvenience or maintenance should be handled by the property owners --the
developer and or homeowners association.
"0 \Orth College Avenue • P.O. Box 7)80 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0 80 • (303) 721-it-..()7,
Mr. Don Wilkerson
October 31, 1991
Page Two
With respect to the grade elevations that were taken from the concrete channel
downstream to the inlet pipe, it is my understanding that the developer shot
these elevations with Mr. Grant of the Homeowners Association and in fact
regraded some of the area in an attempt to solve the standing water problem.
Additionally, Mr. Schlueter with the City Storm Water Utility has talked with Mr.
Terry Heyne who represents the developer and asked for their input regarding this
issue. It is their opinion that they have tried to resolve the problem with the
homeowners association and feel that no agreeable solution has been found which
satisfies both parties. It is unfortunate that this matter has not been resolved
yet. But as I stated earlier, the Developer has complied with the applicable
requirements. Therefore, the resolution of differences between the developer and
the homeowners association is a private matter in which the City cannot be of
further assistance.
Sincerely,
David Stringer
Chief Construction Insppector
Glen Schlueter -
Storm Water Utility Engineer
DS/ltg
cc: Susan Kirkpatrick, Mayor
Ann Azari, Assistant Mayor
Linda Gula, Council Coordinator
Gary Diede, Director of Engineering
Bob Smith, Director of Storm Water Utility
Rich Shannon, Utility Services Director
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: CASA GRANDE PUD #203-79D
DESCRIPTION: 134 condominium units on 20.04 gross acres
DENSITY: 6.69 du/gross acre
General Population
134 (units) x 3.2 (persons/unit) = 428.8
School Age Population
Elementary - 134 (units) x .054 (pupils/unit)
Junior High - 134 (units) x .028 (pupils/unit)
Senior High - 134 (units) x .025 (pupils/unit)
Affected Schools
Putnam Elementary
Blevins Junior High
Rocky Mountain Senior High
= 7.23
= 3.75
= 3.35
Design
Capacity
Enrollment
546
508
865
942 z
1250
1183 -
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1. Parcel Size: Net Area Gross Area
Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet Acres
Phase I 259,293 5.95 288,592 6.63
Phase I & II 401,400 9.21 430,699 9.88
Total Development 803,802 18.45 873,137 20.04
2. Dwelling Units:
(Assume 30$ Type 'A' units, 20% type 'B' units, and 50% type
'C' units)
Floor Area
(sq. ft. )
Phase I -
Type
40
'A'
units
- 12
units
14,568
Type
'B'
- 8
units
14,144
Type
'C'
- 20
units
25,400
Subtotal 54,112
Phase II
- 28
units
Type
'A'
- 7
units
80,498
Type
'B'
- 7
units
12,376
Type
'C'
- 14
units
17,780
Subtotal 38,654
Phase III
- 64 units
Type
'A'
- 19
units
23,066
Type
'B'
- 13
unit
22,984
Type
'C'
- 34
units
43,180
Subtotal 89,230
Total Development
- 132 units
Type
"A'
- 38
units
46,132
Type
'B'
- 28
units
49,504
Type
'C'
- 68
units
861,360
134
units total
181,996
3. Residential Density (dwelling units per acre):
Net Gross
Phase I 6.72 6.03
Phase I and II 7.38 6.88
Total Development 7.26 6.68
4. Community Recreation Building:
The development includes an 1800+ square foot recreation
building for the use of the project residents. The building
will include a large meeting room, card room, area for a pool
table, a small kitchen, 2 handicap equipped restrooms, and a
covered patio area. Eight guest parking spaces are provided,
2 are handicapped.
5. Site
Useage Breakdown:
Sq. Feet
Acres
Net $
Gross $
A.
Building coverage
220,659
5.06
27.4
25.2
B.
Decks, patios, sidewalks
60,327
1.39
7.5
6.9
C.
Driveways
120,433
2.76
14.9
13.7
D.
Public street R.O.W.
69,333
1.59
7.9
E.
Active rec. use area
Phase I
74,942
1.72
28.9
25.9
Phase I & II
87,294
2.00
21.7
20.2
Total development
169,993
3.90
21.1
19.4
F.
Remaining open space
and landscaping
248,585
5.70
30.9
28.4
Total
873,137
20.04
100%
100%
6. Off Street Parking:
Max. spaces required - 268
(assuming all 3-bedroom units)
Spaces provided
Within garages 268 spaces
Guest parking 45 spaces
Handicap guest parking 8 spaces
Total 321 spaces
7. Building Types:
Buildings on -site include 17 four-plexes and 11 six-plexes.
All units within these buildings will be of the following
three basic: types:
Unit "A"; 2: bedroom ranch
Building coverage
Gross floor area
Decks, patios, walks (avg.)
Unit "B"; 3 bedroom, 2-story
Building coverage
Gross floor area
Decks, patios, walks (avg.)
Unit "C"; 3 bedroom ranch
Building coverage
Gross floor area
Decks, patios, walks (avg.)
8. Maximum Building Height:
1653.5 sq. ft.
1214.0 sq. ft.
446 sq. ft.
1537.5 sq. ft.
1768.0 sq. ft.
451.0 sq. ft.
1710.0 sq. ft.
1270.0 sq. ft.
466.0 sq. ft.
No building, roof, chimney or other permanent structure will
be permitted at a height over 3010" above original finish grade
level.
9. Proposed Construction Schedule:
(Approval date is date of approval of final P.U.D. plans by
City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board)
Phase I - Construction shall begin within 1 year of approval
date, completion within 3 years of approval date.
Phase II - Construction shall begin within 3 years of ap-
proval date, completion within 5 years of approval
date.
Phase III - Construction shall begin within 5 years of ap-
proval date, completion within 9 years of approval
date.
SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
CASA GRANDE P.U.D.
On May 2, 1985 in Rocky Mountain High School, the staff of the Department of
Community Development conducted a neighborhood meeting on the subject planned
unit development. The purpose of the meeting was to present the project and
to hear comments from adjacent property owners. Property owners were con-
tacted by writing. Joe Frank, Senior City Planner, attended the meeting and
represented the City staff. Leo Shuster, Brian Sheer, John Freeman and Dan
Herlihey represented the applicants. Approximately 16 adjacent property
owners attended the meeting. The major issues that arose during the meeting
are as follows:
1. Several residents were concerned about children at the intersection
waiting for buses.
Staff Response: This appears to be problem associated with the School
District buses than with the project itself. The project should not
impact this situation one way or another.
2. Many residents were concerned about the already existing low water
pressure problem and how it would be impacted by the development.
Staff Response: The low water pressure is an area wide problem. Plans are
underway which should relieve this problem. For instance, the Rossborough
Subdivision to the east will be installing some water system improvements
that will increase water pressure for this subdivision. There are also
larger system improvements in the area being planned for in the next few
years. This proposal should not significantly affect existing water
pressure.
3. Several residents were concerned about construction traffic from the
development on Hickok St. and Casa Grande Blvd.
Staff Response: Construction traffic will be routed along the future
Laredo Lane to Casa Grande in order to avoid Hickok St.
4. There was concern expressed about the impact on turning movements at the
Casa Grande/Shields intersection.
Staff Response: The improvement of Shields Street is underway as it abuts
the entire Wagon Wheel Development including installation of a signal at
the Horsetooth/Shields intersection. The improvement to Shields Street
will include, a median and left turn bay onto Casa Grande. The signal
should provide better spacing of vehicles which should allow easier left
turns onto Shields St. from Casa Grande. The future extension of Seneca
Street to the south and the installation of another access point to the
subdivision from Swallow Road should relieve this problem.
5. Is there the potential for a school crossing at Shields Street.
Staff Response: This comment will be discussed with the School District.
6. Several residents questioned the impact of the first phase of development
with only one access point of Hickok St. Several residents would prefer
to see Laredo Lane installed at the beginning.
Staff Response: The number of trips should not significantly impact the
homes along Hickok Drive from the first phase of the project (forty
units). Any further development should include the remaining portions of
that street.
7. How will the applicants guarantee that the project will be for "older"
adults as presented at the meeting?
Staff Response: There is no guarantee as to the type of resident in the
project.
8. Several residents were concerned about the variety of buildings and would
like to see some two story elements along the public streets.
Staff Response: The staff is also concerned about the variety of
buildings in the project. See staff report for further comments.
9. Residents would like to see some variety in the building materials.
Staff Response: Staff agrees. See staff comments for more details.
10. Will the units facing Casa Grande, Hickok St. and Seneca St. encourage
parking on this street?
Staff Response: The streets in front -of these units are designed to allow
parking on both sides for the abutting single family homes as well as the
proposed condominium units. Each unit is provided with a two car garage.
In addition, guest parking has been provided. The staff believes that
some parking will occur on these streets for short term and guest parking.
However, this should not present any significant problems for the
neighborhood.
11. Some residents would like to see single family homes built on the property
instead.
Staff Response: No comment.
12. Will the existing trees be maintained. They have created ice build-up
problems on Casa Grande in the past.
Staff Response: All existing trees will remain. They will be pruned to
City specifications which should resolve some of the icing problems.
The applicants have also submitted written responses to each of these
comments.
r-
en
W
MEMOP.At',IDUM
0
0
a
Cr
N
To: Leo Schuster
Jo
Fort Collins Staff
•
co
CO
Z
CD
CO
From: Matt Delich�
a
J
>
Date: Tune 1, 1985
0
J
Subject: Response to traffic comments. on Casa
Grande PUD
z
w
a
a
This memorandum addresses two specific traffic
z
related comments made by the City of Fort Collins Staff
m
concerninc, Casa Grande PUD. The comments refer to the
r
design speed of Laredo Lane and the width of Seneca
Street south of Hickok.
Concern was expressed that the design speed on the
two horizontal curves on Laredo were at less than 30
mph. The Fort Collins Design Criteria and Standards for
Streets allows a design speed of 25-30 mph for local
streets. Use of the lesser, design speed must be
approved by the traffic engineer. Laredo Lane has been
designed with a centerline radius_ of 175 feet. This. is
the approved design in the Wagon Wheel Filing Number 3.
A centerline radius_. of 165 feet results in a design
speed of 25 mph for a local street. The 175 foot radius
results in a design speed of 26 mph. The requested
z
posted speed on Laredo Lane will be 25 mph. This is ?6
w
percent i)f the design speed. Running speed, as
z
documented by AAC+HTO (1984), is typically 90-95 percent
z
of the design speed. At tow speeds and 1 ouJ Vol umeS, the
u;
W
running speed often is very close to the design speed.
Typically on high volume, high speed roads, the running
v
speed and design speed diverge significantly.
•
v
zo
It is requested that the City of Fort Collins
a
permit a posted speed of 25 mph on Laredo Lane for the
LU
o
following reasons:
a
Q
- The design speed is greater than 25 mph and
generally within acceptable engineering practice.
3
�
- The street design a.s proposed is identical to
_
-<
that approved in the Wagon Wheel Filing Number 3. This
I—
�-
developer, in fact, does not own or control all the land
Q
necessary to make a change to a higher design speed.
M