The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFAIRBROOKE HEIGHTS PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-10-29CITI OF FORT COLLINS PLANNING DIVISION March 18, 1981 P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (3031 -'84-4220 Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. One Drake Park, Suite 23 333 West Drake Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear John: EXT. 655 The staff has reviewed the application for preliminary planned unit development approval for Aspen Heights and would offer the following comments: C � 1. There does not appear to be sufficient setback between sidewalks and buildings for placement of necessary utilities. Fifteen feet is the standard. If you wish to vary this requirement, you should contact me and I will arrange the necessary meeting with the City's Utility Coordinating Committee who will review your request. 2. Prescott Street should have a minimum centerline radius of 165 feet. Please revise plan. 3. Parking spaces should be designed so as not to be within 50 feet of the flowline of any public local street intersection or major drive cut. Four parking areas do not meet this requirement and should be corrected on the preliminary plan. 4. The Public Works Department questions the capacity of the detention pond on the southeast corner of Somerville Drive and Longshire Drive to hold the water as expected. Please clarify. 5. There is an existing drainageway which traverses Phase 4 from the property to the east that has not been indicated on the plans. Please clarify. 6. The November 1977 r1aster Drainage Study - Brown Farm Fifth Filing on which the preliminary drainage plans for this property are based will require up- dating to bring it into compliance with the City's current storm drainage standards. This item should be completed prior to any preliminary plan approval. 7. Several trash containers which are located along public streets will present sight distance problems and should be relocated on the preliminary plan. Department of Planning and Development April 6, 1981 Attn: Joe Frank, Senior Planner Page Three Re: Aspen Heights P.U.D. Preliminary Plan this project. Correspondence dated March 24, 1981 - 1. Addressed. 2. The ditch and utility easement overlap is no longer neces- sary due to the relocation of the canal. 3. Same as above. 4. The applicant understands that the developer will be re- sponsible to run electrical lines to 8-plex units. 5. Understood. 6. The four required fire hydrants have been provided consistent with the fire authority. 7. A "blanket easement" over the entire open space has been provided. 8. The redesign of this area on the revised plan addresses fire access concern. 9. The applicant has attempted to locate hydrants and to loop water lines according to City requirements. Correspondence dated March 27, 1981 - 1. The applicant has submitted engineering calculations which demonstrate the feasibility of "shortcutting" the canal. The applicant understands that the costs involved in relocating the canal, including the bike path, bridge and Brown Farm detention area will be the responsibility of the developer. 2. Calculations relating to the realignment of the canal right- of-way have been submitted by the applicant to the city engineers. The applicant understands that the costs associated with canal relocation will be borne by the developer. 3. The applicant has met with John Michie, Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal. A letter signed by Mr. Michie regarding canal relocation should be delivered to the Planning Office by April 15th. Also, Mr. John Wheeler, President of Wheeler Realty and owner of the property east of the existing canal location, has been notified by the applicant of intended canal relocation plans and he is expected to formally Department of Planning and Development April 6, 1981 Attn: Joe Frank, Senior Planner Page Four Re: Aspen Heights P.U.D. Preliminary Plan indicate his support prior to the April Planning and Zoning Boar meeting. on behalf of the applicant, we hope that all staff comments have been addressed in an acceptable fashion. Thank you for your constructive and cooperative review of Aspen Height Very ruly you s, Lester M. Kaplan LMK:kd cc: John Dengler l 9 w4\y] ., mua:flS�R"ExPkVat �e..its.�,z'�' s.rmmisd.��.,':-t��.'�a..a+�1a,.x,.w m�we�sm:x.,.•>.�.ta �...'vvc: l,4 CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX SRO, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 Fill(303) 484-4220 . r. G, 1'11 ..... v,,1 FVu.3.'Y"%'A t,. Q: ,• ;. i. ;` .. i+w,:n.S-.. srn5ve%efP'a,3 ,jt`,I nif8 ,. "I Vt, ¢2aV,:4:ATYsAnL PLANNING DIVISION EXT.655 April 21, 1982 Mr. Jim Gefroh Gefroh Associates, Inc. 555 South Howes, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Aspen Heights PUD - Final Dear Jim: The staff has reviewed the application for final PUD approval of Aspen Heights PUD and would offer the following comments: 1. All parking areas should be designed to allow for fire equipment access - 40-foot outside and 20-foot inside turning radii. Please verify on site plan. 2. A temporary cul-de-sac at north end of Sommerville Drive will be required. Please indicate. 3. The site plan should indicate location of "No Parking" signs. 4. Applicant should provide better definition for PBL canal relocation. 5. Applicant will be required to submit a formal written variance from onsite detention requirement. 6. The subdivision plat should be submitted as part of the utility drawings. 7. The subdivision plat as submitted should be revised to show the following: a. Monumentation, need basis of bearings; b. Some dimensions not consistent with existing plats of record. 8. Applicant should provide better delineation of details of parking areas, (Sheet 5 of 6) in utility plans. 9. Easements should be provided for walks and parking areas which are located outside of right-of-way on public streets. 10. Applicant should resolve inconsistency between utility drawings and site plan regarding sidewalks. Mr. Jim Gefroh Gefroh Associates, Inc. April 21, 1982 Page 2 11. The curve radii of the southwest corner of Glendale Drive and Prescott Street does not appear to meet City standards. 12. Applicant should work with Public Works staff regarding other comments on the the utility drawings. 13. The 12-foot setback from backs of curb or sidewalk may not be adequate for utility purposes. The location of utility lines in parking areas is also unacceptable unless special arrangement are made. Applicant should work with staff to develop an agreeable solution. 14. Building envelopes should be dimensioned from the two closest property lines. 15. Landscape medians will be responsibility ofproperty owners and should be designated as out parcels. 16. The landscaping plan indicates four major goals for the landscape treatment adjacent to the building envelopes which are very good. However, the staff would like to work with the applicant in terms of strengthening the implementation of these goals in the landscape plan. 17. The staff questions the landscape treatment of islands in cul-de-sacs. 18. Are sidewalks installed on east side of Longshire Drive? If not, sidewalks should be indicated. 19. Active open space areas should be clearly indicated and dimensioned. 20. Exact height. of structures should be indicated instead of 40-foot maximum. 21. Landscape islands in parking lot should include both trees and low-lying shrubs. 22. Site plan should indicate number of units of each dwelling type and the total number of each of the dwelling types. 23. Part of Note #14 is not necessary as there are no 6-foot sidewalks in the project. 24. Has Note #10 been met in the site plan? Please verify. 25. Please submit mylars of architectural elevations. I would recommend we meet as soon as possible to discuss the above items. Re- visions to the plans should be submitted no later than May 6, 1982. Also, on Monday, May 17, 1982, 8-2"xll" reductions and colored renderings of all drawings should be submitted. If you have any questions regarding the comments in this letter, please call me. Mr. Jim Gefroh Gefroh Associates, Inc. April 21, 1982 Page 3 Sincerely yours, Joe Frank Senior Planner JF/fsr cc: Josh Richardson, Development Engineer Ken Waido, Acting Planning Director ITEM: .4 5IREiv 11�El 4# T.S P u-0 EUI SIONS L /rase r-l�vrn �vr� r�vh�f S COMMENTS .Z Ay / All 3. �l2czsrnen� YYIc7�t SLiIWI 14 A9a/ . tillr�- ♦� — /p�aG GllOrd dvives S. �d�2�/in9 in `Jy»�6e1 ScLie�w�2 p�jC-s. p-as /menzL C!//�� --e �4��ec✓ Comm ity Planning and Environmentz ervices Current Planning City of Fort Collins May 19, 1995 Linda Ripley Ripley Associates 223 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Linda, JD Staff has reviewed your revised documents for the Fairbrooke Heights P.U.D., Preliminary, that were submitted on March 10 and March 24, 1995, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. As you are well aware, the Fairbrooke Heights P.U.D., Preliminary was placed on hold, indefinitely, until regional storm drainage issues and the proposed ditch realignment issues could be resolved. Revised documents were therefore held pending notification from the Stormwater Utility Department that there was a reasonable comfort level that further changes to the layout/density would be minimal. On May 8, 15195 the revised Plat/Site/Landscape Plan was routed to reviewing agencies. I notified Ripley Associates and Northern Engineering that the Fairbrooke Heights P.U.D, Preliminary would be tentatively placed on the June 26, 1995 P & Z Board agenda pending final resolution of all regional storm drainage and ditch realignment issues as well as any layout and design concerns. At the June 9, 1995 '$Final Review", staff will determine whether or not this project will remain on the June 26 P & Z agenda. 2. The Preliminary Plat/Site/Landscape Plan does not really resemble a Plat. The Mapping Department will need to review a separate Plat document as part of a Final P.U.D. submittal. 3. The current method of designating attached single family or patio home lots needs to be clarified. Please shade these lots darker and add a note to the Preliminary Plat/Site/Landscape Plan that identifies, by lot number, which lots are attached single family or patio home lots. 4. Please clarify the building envelopes for the multi -family structures. Dimensions must be shown. 5. Columbine CableVision requests that rear lot utility easements on lots 15 thru 47 be added to the Preliminary Plat/Site/Landscape Plan. Without rear lot easements, pedestals will be necessary in the front yards of all lots. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 FAX (303) 221-6378 TDD (303) 224-6002 Fairbrooke Heights PUD Page 2 December 14, 1994 10. The Water and Wastewater Utility Department requests that you re-evaluate the sanitary sewer location off of Maroon Bells Court. They would prefer that the sanitary sewer connection be made at the intersection of Langshire and Somerville. There are concerns with connecting to an existing sanitary sewer line which is beneath a detention pond. Please contact Roger Buffington at 221-6681 to discuss alternatives. 11. A signature block for the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company needs to be added to the Plat. 12. "Little Bear Court" and "Red Cloud Court" already exist in the Dakota Ridge development. Please rename these streets in Fairbrooke Heights. 13. The storm drainage solution is unclear. Ditch crossing agreements must be obtained and ditch right-of-ways maintained. Please coordinate with Glen Schlueter of the Stormdrainage Department at 221-6589. 14. An additional fire hydrant will have to be placed at Langshire Drive and Somerville Drive. This will bring the total gallonage available to 2,000 GPM, which is necessary for the multi -family housing. 15. Columbine CableVision will need rear lot utility easements on all lots, and would like to work with the developer on the wiring of the multi -family units and the installation of Columbine Cable mains to these units. 16. Please be aware that the final submittal will be reviewed against the Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes. The applicant has received copies of these standards in previous correspondence. Please contact Jim Clark, City Water Conservation Specialist at 221-7551 with any questions. 17. Parkland fees of $779/unit or single family residence will be assessed at the time of issuance of building permit. 18. Apartments accessible and adaptable for use by persons with disabilities must be provided in accordance with Section 3103(a)8, as amended by the City of Fort Collins. The 1992 edition of the American National Standard Institute publication #A117.1 "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities" should be used in the design of accessible/adaptable dwelling units. A local amendment to the UBC requires that accessible units with numbers of bedrooms and other amenities be provided in the same ratio as the remainder of the project. When more stringent, the Colorado Fairbrooke Heights PUD Page 3 December 14, 1994 revised Statute, Title 9, Article 5, Section 111 also applies to apartment projects. Though not administered at the municipal level, similar requirements are contained in State and Federal civil rights legislation (Fair Housing Acts). 19. The site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with Uniform Building Code Section 3103 and UBC Appendix Section 3106. Provide designated and marked accessible routes between buildings and the public way and accessible parking and buildings and connecting accessible buildings and common use areas. Provide parking and signs per Appendix Section 3107. 20. Section 504 of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Fort Collins requires that exterior walls of one- and two-family dwellings located closer than 3 feet from a property line be of one -hour fire -resistive construction. No openings are allowed in such exterior walls. A parapet extending 30-inches above the roof surface is required unless the structure complies with the exceptions to Section 1710. Projections, such as cornices, eave overhangs or exterior balconies shall not extend over the property line and must comply with UBC Sections 1711 and 504. 21. Pending approval of the proposed irrigation ditch realignment and detention pond reconfiguration, the following would be required of the developer to the City owned property south of the proposed Fairbrooke Heights PUD: a. The existing bike/pedestrian path bridge must be replaced with a 10' wide bridge designed to carry heavy equipment used for the maintenance of the ditches and detention pond. b. A new bike/pedestrian bridge which crosses the realigned portion of the irrigation ditch must be constructed to provide through access on the bike path. C. The existing bike path must be replaced/realigned if it is removed due to the proposed reconfiguration of the detention pond. 22. Staff recommends that the developer consider providing bike/pedestrian connections from the existing bike path to the Maroon Bells Court cul-de-sac and from the Maroon Bells Court cul-de-sac to the Red Cloud Court (to be renamed) cul-de-sac. Fairbrooke Heights PUD Page 4 December 14, 1994 This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request. Please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay on schedule for the January 23, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: *•,►•�r**rw,t*,t*,t,t,t,t+t**,t,tr,t,t*r*r*r**a,try*rt*,ts,t*r+t*r*r**,t*,ts,t,tr,ts,t,t,t*• Plan revisions are due by 5:00 p.m. on January 4, 1995. Please contact me for the number of folded revisions required for each document. PMT•s, renderings, and 8 folded copies of final revisions (for the Planning and Zoning Board packets) are due by 3:00 p.m. on January 17, 1995. r,t*,►,r*,tfrt*r****��,t,t,t+tr*,►r�,t*,tr,t,t*,e,t+tr+tr***,t,t*r,t+t,t,t*t*,►***,t**:*tt,►t Please contact me at 221-6206 if you have any questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Sincerely,y, Michael Ludwig Project Planner xc: Kerrie Ashbeck Stormwater Utility file/Project Planner Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. March 18, 1981 Page 2 B. There will be needed additional easement granted on the irrigation canal curves to rrake the hydraulics of the canal operate properly. The applicant should review the City's Importation Study and contact the City drainage engineers for more information. 9. The preliminary site plan should indicate distances between buildings and to property lines. 10. The site plan should indicate the followinq note: "All portions of the exterior walls of the first story of all buildings shall be within 150 feet of the access roadway for these buildings." 11. All active open space areas must meet certain minimum engineering standards as specified by the Public Works Department. Several of the active open space areas do not appear to meet these requirements. The applicant should provide evidence to justify the open space design. 12. The preliminary plan should indicate the square footage and dimensions of each active open space area. 13. Additional screening should be provided along north property line. 14. Landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be required on the final landscape plans. 15. The first note on the preliminary plan concerning 10°' coverage is incorrect. Section 118-81 G.(1.)(d.) of the City Code specifies that the amount of increase of total ground area covered by buildings from the preliminary to final plan preparation shall not exceed 5`s. Please correct. 16. Phasing lines are not clear. Please clarify. 17. The applicant should consider the use of 17-foot parking stalls where they abut landscaped areas and 17-foot stalls on 6-foot sidewalks. 18. Where parking abuts adjacent properties landscape screening should be provided. 19. What plans does the applicant have to reduce the hazard of the drainage canal from residents? Treatment should be coordinated with ditch company and Planning Division. Before the staff can proceed with processing the application for development approval, a revised Master Plan and preliminary plan reflecting the above comments will be required. Those items which cannot be shown on a site plan should be addressed through the appropriate documents and a letter from the applicant responding to those items should be submitted. These revisions should be —� Comrr ity Planning and Environmenta Planning Department City of Fort Collins December 14, 1994 Linda Ripley Ripley Associates 223 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Linda, ervices �J Staff has reviewed your documents for the Fairbrooke Heights PUD, Preliminary, that were submitted November 21, 1994, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. The 100' right-of-way needed for the dual ditch system must all be on the Booton property. No encroachment on the neighbors property will be allowed. 2. All stormwater detention design requirements must meet the Regional Master Plan controls. 3. This Fairbrooke Heights property will be required to retain all stormwater volumes that are in addition to historic flows until the new canal importation channel is built. 4. The Site Plan and Plat will need to be separate documents for the Final submittal. 5. The bearings currently are not legible and must be shown clearly so the Engineering Department can check for accuracy and closure. 6. All easements must be labeled on the Site Plan/Plat/Landscape Plan and Utility Plans. 7. The "sight" distance easement shown on Lot 1 extends into Fairbrooke PUD, Tract A. An off -site easement from the property owner is needed. If this can not be obtained, reconfiguration of the site may be necessary. 8. The multi -family portion of the project shown on the Site Plan/Plat/Landscape Plan does not conform to what is shown on the preliminary Utility Plans. Staff is unable to determine which plan is correct. 9. A lot separation distance for trees and 4' separation distance for shrubs must be maintained from all water/sanitary sewer mains, services, etc. 281 North Colleee Avenue • P.O Box ;80 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6770 FAX (303) 221-6378 TDD (303) 224-6002 Ms. Linda Ripley May 19, 1995 Page 2 6. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company will require formal agreements for any crossing of the ditch, relocation of the ditch, drainage into the ditch or infringement of the Company's easement. Staff has received a copy of the "letter of intent" from the ditch company to Mr. Booton. 7. The Natural Resources Department requests that the applicant re -vegetate the ditch right-of-way with native plant species. 8. A proposed gross density of 6.9 units per acre will require the project to achieve a minimum of 69 points on the residential uses point chart. Please refer to the letter you received from Bob Blanchard confirming staffs interpretation of Bonus Criterion "t" and "v". Based upon that letter, it appears that this project would gain no points for criterion "t" and only 5 points for criterion "v". Therefore, this project is one point short of the minimum requirement of 69 points. 9. The number of units per multi -family structure needs to be shown on site plan. 10. In a letter dated March 10, 1995 you responded to item #21 of My comment letter dated December 14, 1995, by stating "The trail will connect to the existing bride on the west side..." This does not address my comment. The existing bridge to the west will not provide adequate structural support for ditch and detention pond maintenance equipment. The proposed ditch realignment will eliminate access to the detention area, therefore a new bridge is being required on the west side. 11. The bike path/trail connection from Indian Peaks Place should be 10' wide and paved. Please add this dimension to the Site Plan. 12. Engineering and Stormwater Department comments are forthcoming and will. be forwarded to Northern Engineering. It appears that the ditch realignment must also be approved by the owner of the Brown Farm, Highlands PUD prior to P & Z Board review of the Fairbrooke Heights P.U.D., Preliminary. This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request. Please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay on schedule for the June 26, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: Plan revisions are due by 5:00 p.m. on June 7, 1995. Please contact me for the number of folded revisions required for each document. Ms. Linda Ripley May 19, 1995 Page 3 PMTIs, renderings, and 8 folded copies of final revisions are due by 3:00 P.M. on June 19, 1995. Please contact me at 221-6206 if you have any questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Sincerely, '�. Michael Ludwig Project Planner xc: Kerrie Ashbeck Stormwater Utility file/Project Planner c ine n Sen ices. Inc. June 5, 1995 Mr. Michael Ludwig Community Planning and Environmental Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 RE: Fair_brook:e Heights PUD Preliminary Response to City Comments Dear Steve, This letter is in response to City comments to the Preliminary submittal of the Fairhrooke Heights P.U.D. I have contacted Roger Buffington with the City of Fort Collins Water and Wastewater Department, and Kerrie Ashbeck with City of Fort Collins Engineering Department regarding City comments to the Preliminary submittal for Fairbrooke Heights, and they both agreed that all of their comments could be addressed with Final Design of this project. I also contacted Basil Hamdan with the Stormwater Utility regarding their comments. He would like to see some minor grading modifications along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. All other Stormwater comments can be addressed at Final Design. These grading changes will be resubmitted to Stormwater Utility by Friday, June 9. The client has expressed an interest in making some minor site changes to the Multi Family attached housing in Phase II. Attached is a sketch of these modifications which will also be incorporated into final design. Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Roger A. Curtiss P.E. cc: Eric Booton Linda Ripley �03i 22: !1,, Comrni- t-; Pla.^..nin,_ and Envlronmenta.. iic2s C Lj,rrent ?!annim, City of Fort Collins August 18, 1995 Linda Ripley Ripley Associates 223 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Linda, Staff has reviewed the documents for the Fairbrooke Heights P.U.D., Final, that were submitted on July 24, 1995, and would like to offer the following comments: Section 29-526 F(5)(b)[1]a of the City Code states: "For preliminary planned unit developments approved on or after March 13, 1981, `substantial compliance' shall mean that all conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board upon its approval of the Preliminary plans have been met and the final plan does not change the general use or character of the development." Staff is concerned that the Final Site Plan has changed the general character of the multi -family portion of the approved Preliminary for the following reasons: a. The setbacks of the southern most multi -family unit from the property line along Somerville Drive have been reduced by 10' to 17'. The proposed combination of street trees, foundation plantings, parking lot, and smaller setbacks do not provide adequate buffering for the structure from the public right-of-way. b. The setback of the northern most multi -family unit from the north lot line was 25' on the approved Preliminary but has been reduced to 15' on the Final Site Plan. The loss of 10' of setback combined with virtually no landscaping does not provide adequate buffering for the structure from the proposed single family residences to the north. C. The multi -family building coverage has increased nearly 17% from the approved Preliminary. It appears that this increase in building coverage, combined with parking requirements has further reduced limited open space areas. Tenants are virtually confined to either their apartment or automobile. The Final Site; Plan may not be in "substantial compliance" with the approved Preliminary as required by the LDGS. 281 V:orth Code,e Avenue • �O. Sou ;80 For, Collins. CO 30522-0580 • ;9;0) 22',-n750 FAX t°71'_'1-13i8 TDD,97O)'14-h002 2. Staff has several concerns regarding the proposed parking lot configuration. a. Staff does not oppose the reduction of 8 parking spaces on the sight plan as the minimum of 63 parking spaces will still be provided. However, the reduction of parking spaces has not resulted in a significant reduction of paving. This, combined with the increased building coverage has created a nearly 100% impervious site with virtually no open "green" space. b. The flour parking spaces on the south side of the southern most multi -family structure are not set back far enough from the travel lanes of Somerville Drive and create a traffic hazard. In addition, this parking lot does not contribute to the effort of buffering the multi-famiiy structures from Somerville Drive. C. The fire truck turnaround radius of 35' does meet the minimum standard of 40'. The Fire Code requires buildings three or more stories in height or containing 16 or more dwelling units to be fire sprinklered. The Poudre Fire Authority has determined that the proposed multi -family buildings are three-story structures and will therefore require the multi -family buildings to be equipped with automatic fire suppression systems and eliminating the need for the fire truck turnaround. Staff suggests that a 16 space, rectangular parking lot (similar to the design on the approved Preliminary) be provided in place of the fire truck turnaround/parking lot. The applicant could then eliminate the 4-space parking lot on the south side of the southern most multi -family structure and to relocate the proposed trash dumpster. In addition, this design would exceed the minimum requirement of 63 parking spaces, would decrease the amount of paved surface area, would help buffer the multi -family structures from Somerville Drive, and would provide some common "green" space. Page 3 of the Fairbrooke Heights PUD, Preliminary Staff Memo stated: "Staff will further review the architectural compatibility at the time of Final PUD." After reviewing the architectural elevations, staff offers the following suggestions for the applicant to consider: a. Providing shutters and/or "popping out" the windows would help provide some visual relief for the buildings. b. Balconies would help provide some outdoor private space for the tenants. As stated in continent 1(c), the current site constraints and design virtually confines tenants to either their apartment or automobile. There is no place for a tenant to relax outdoors with some privacy or to have a bar-b-que. Balconies would help alleviate some of this confinement and would provide some architectural features for the building exteriors. C. Please: specify building materials and colors on the building elevations. Also, please add overall building dimensions. The proposed trash dumpsters must be enclosed and located on concrete pads. The enclosures should be large enough to accommodate recycling dumpsters also. Materials used for the dumpster enclosures must be the same as or compatible with the multi -family structures. Please add an elevation drawing of the enclosures to the elevation sheet. 4. The Water and Wastewater Utility requests the following revisions: a. The :Landscape plan shall contain a general note calling for the review and approval by the City of Fort Collins of any required landscape irrigation system prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. Please coordinate with Northern Engineering on the location of water and sanitary sewer mains and services. There appear to be conflicts with landscaping. c. The endings of the first two sentences of Plant Note 42 should be revised to read .....feet to any water or sewer line or service." 5. Comments and requested revisions from the Engineering Department are attached. 6. The Building Inspection and Zoning Department requests the following revisions: a. A bike rack should be added for the southern most multi -family building. In addition, the proposed bike racks should be shown on the Site Plan. b. The "SINGLE- FAMILY SETBACKS" land use statistic should be revised to indicate that the applicable lots are 19-27 and 34-51. C. The multi -family building envelopes are difficult to interpret. Are they indicating that the building placement may vary to the east and west but not the north and south? The dimensions are so small, they are too difficult to read. Please clarify. d. Apartments accessible and adaptable for use by persons with disabilities must be provided in accordance with Section 3103(a)8 as amended by the City of Fort Collins. The 1992 edition of the American National Standard Institute publication #Al 17.1 "Accessible and usable Buildings and Facilities" should be used in the design of accessible/adaptable dwelling units. A local ordinance (82-1995) requires that accessible units be provided with the same functional features in the same proportions as the: remainder of the project. When more stringent, the Colorado revised Statute, Title 9, Article 5, Section 111 also applies to apartment projects. Though not administered at the municipal level, similar requirements are contained in State and Federal civil rights legislation (Fair Housing Acts). e. The site must be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with Uniform Buidng Code Section 3103 and UBC Appendix Section 3106. Provide designated and marked accessible routes between buildings and the public way and accessible parking and buildings and connecting accessible buildings and common use areas. Runring slopes on accessible routes or travel shall not exceed 1:20 with cross slopes no steeper than 1:48. Provide parking and signs per Appendix Section 3107. Parking spaces and access aisles shall comply with ANSI At 17.1-1992. Minimum width is 8 feet for an accessible parking space and 5 feet for the adjacent access aisle. Slopes for accessible parking and access aisles shall not exceed 1:48 in any direction. 7. The Mapping; Department requests the following revisions to the Plat: a. Please dimension the easement along the west line of lots 25 and 38. b. Please dimension the right-of-way widths of the streets. C. Please indicate the total acreage of the plat (14.079). d. There are several discrepancies (hundredth/seconds) in the legal description versus the plat map. 8. Stormwater Utility comments are attached. 9. Please add the following notes to the Site Plan: a. "Lot 1 is restricted by sight distance easement. No structures are allowed within this easement. For landscaping and fencing in this area, refer to the site distance easement restrictions on the Final Plat." b. "Any portions of the existing bike/pedestrian path damaged during construction are to be replaced at the developers expense." C. "All signage to comply with the requirements of Chapter 29, Article IV of the City Code (the Sign Code)." 10. Based upon All Development Criteria A-2.12 "Setbacks" and A-2.13 "Landscape", staff has the following, landscaping concerns: a. Due to the height of the multi -family structures (approximately 35') and building setbacks of approximately 17' to 20', additional "year round" vertical relief is needed along the north and west property lines for privacy and buffering.. b. Additional "year round" vertical relief is needed on the south and east sides of the southern most multi -family structure to buffer it from Somerville Drive. Since the proposed multi -family structures are a higher intensity use than the proposed single-family uses, a 6' privacy fence must be installed along the north and east property lines of the multi -family portion of the project as well as additional "year --round" landscaping. d. Automobile headlights are not screened from the windows to of the first floor apartments. This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request. Please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay on schedule for the September 25, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Plan revisions are due by 5:00 p.m. on September 6, 1995. Please contact me for the number of folded revisions required for each document. PMT's, renderings, and 8 folded copies of final revisions are due by 3:00 p.m. on September 18, 1995. xxxxxxzzxxxxzzxxzxxxzzzzxzxxzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxzzxxxxxxzzxxxxzzzxxxxxxxxzxxzxxxx Please contact me at 221-6206 if you have any questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Michael Ludwig Project Planner xc: Kerrie Ashbeck Stormwater Utility file/Project Planner 0i mnunitY Planning and Environmental Services Cite of 10_1E E o;h1l" Current Planning Comments for Fairbrooke Heights PUD Planner: Troy Jones May 1, 2000 1. There is an October 1998 memo from Mike Ludwig regarding this property that should be noted. In this memo, Mike outlined a problem that the applicant was having at that time. The original PUD called for 3 multifamily buildings having 12 units each. The applicant asked Mike what it would take to now build 3 multifamily buildings with 8 units each. At that time, Mike pointed out that the LUC limits changes in density that can be processed as a minor amendment. It cannot be processed as a minor amendment if the amendment results in an increase or decrease by one (1) percent or less in the approved number of dwelling units. Such a change at that time would have been required to be processed as a major amendment. 2. The applicant, Eric Booton, had discussions with Bob Blanchard and Ron Fuchs in May of 1999 about changing the building elevations. At that time he wanted to remove some windows and some architectural embellishments from some of the facades. He was told the extent of the changes he was proposing may be a change in character and if so, would become a major amendment rather than a minor amendment. He was told that if it became a major amendment that the entire site would be required to be brought into compliance with LUC requirements (to the maximum extent feasible). 3. I've been asked to analyze the approved PUD against Land Use Code Criteria. The following comments are based on requirements of the Land Use Code. a. Section 4.3(B) of the LUC states that multifamily housing is not a permitted use in the RL zoning district. b. The Structure Plan would support a change in zoning to LMN, but it would be up to the applicant to apply to do so. The applicant should keep in mind that rezone applications are only taken twice a year, and take approximately 4 months to process. (0- Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. March 18, 1981 Page 3 delivered to this office no later than March 30, 1981. Also, on Monday, April 20, 1981 an 8-1/2 x 11" reduction of all plans and colored architectural elevations and colored site plans should be submitted. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Joe F ank Sent r Planner JF/fsr cc: Curt Smith Les Kaplan Josh Richardson c. Section 3.2.2(E)(6)(B) requires that no more than 15 parking spaces can be in a row without an intervening tree, landscape island, or landscape peninsula. d. The site plan provides 65 parking spaces, but will probably loose at least 2 based on comment "c" above. If the applicant is still proposing to have 36 units, the required number of parking spaces becomes an issue. 63 parking spaces can accommodate 36 two - bedroom units, but if the applicant wants the units to have more than two bedrooms, either more parking spaces or fewer units must be provided. The residential parking requirements are specified in Section 3.2.2(K) of the LUC. e. Site lighting must be shown in accordance with section 3.2.4 of the LUC. Light sources shall be concealed and fully shielded and shall feature sharp cut-off capability so as to minimize up -light, spill light, glare & unnecessary diffusion on adjacent properties. Lighting levels should be between 1 and 10 foot-candles at any one location on site. Wall mounted lights on the sides of buildings must also be sharp cut-off lighting. f. The trees along the west property line are in the area between the proposed parking lot and an adjacent property line. The LUC requires in Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(1) that these trees shall be spaced at a maximum of 40 feet on center along this parking lot edge, but as shown, the trees are spaced at 45 foot spacing. g. Two additional trees are required (one between building A and the street, and the other between building B and the street) in order to satisfy the "full tree stocking" requirement of Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) of the LUC. Please see the attached redlines. h. Section 3.5.2(C)(1) requires that front facades with a primary entrance to dwelling units must face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200 feet from a street sidewalk. A connecting walkway that connects the plaza area between buildings B and C with the street sidewalk must be added to the site plan to satisfy this standard. i. Section 3.5.2(C)(2) of the LUC requires that multifamily buildings that face a street have at least one building entry or doorway facing the adjacent street. Building B needs a building entry or doorway on the eastern fa4ade to satisfy this standard. j. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) of the LUC requires that at least 6% of the interior space of the parking lot shall be landscaped areas. The parking lot is 19,400 square feet, so there needs to be at least 1,164 square feet of landscaped area within the interior space of the parking lot. As shown, the interior landscaped area of the parking lot is rather short at providing this requirement. See Figure 1 on page 12 of Article 3 for clarification on the boundary of what is considered part of the "interior" of the parking lot. k. Section 3.5.1(J)(2) requires that the trash enclosure materials must not be made of inferior materials to the principal materials of the building. It must match the brick and/or siding of the building. w Y �.... .u�$rvMPY.. ,xf+r �� v.� �,k.'aae�t' +,. .,., ""u- � .y k�v t J°} f` •:��-� �t 1.# PLANNING DIVISION EXT. 655 March 24, 1981 Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. One Drake Park, Suite 23 333 West Drake Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 Re: Aspen Heights PUD Dear John: At our meeting on March 24, 1981, the Utility Coordinating Committee recommended the following changes on the Aspen Heights project: 1. Four feet of easement behind sidewalk will be sufficient if applicant agrees to pay additional cost of locating electricity under pavement. If not, 12-feet is a minimum. If gas is to be provided in addition to elec- tricity, 15-feet will be required. 2. Fifty-five (55) foot ditch easement should also be a utility easement. 3. Placement of telephone lines in ditch/utility easement should be coordin- ated with telephone company to avoid unbuildable areas. 4. Developer will be responsible to run electrical lines to 8-plex units. City is responsible for running lines up to and including 4-plex units. 5. Developer will run conduit (2-inch PVC) from telephone pedestal to CT box (also provided by developer) on building. 6. Four (4) fire hydrants will be required. Location should be coordinated with fire authority. 7. Blanket easement over entire open space should be provided. 8. Eight-plex in center island northeast of Fillmore Drive does not satisfy 150-foot fire access requirement and should be redesigned. 9. The 660-foot single access requirement for this project shall be waived. Spacing of hydrants and looping of water mains is extremely important. Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. March 24, 1981 Page 2 Each phase of construction must stand on its own as far as fire access and utilities. If you have any questions concerning the above comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Joe Frank- SeniorsPlanner JF/fsr cc: Curt Smith Josh Richardson Lester M. Kaplan PH (303) 484-4220 EXT. 655 March 27, 1981 Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. One Drake Park, Suite 23 333 West Drake Road Fort Collins, CC) 80526 Dear John: At our meeting on Friday, March 27, 1981 concerning the Aspen Heights project, the following items were resolved: 1. The staff would approve "shortcutting" the irrigation canal at the west end of the property. However, you will be responsible for preparing the engineering calculations to determine the feasibility of doing this. Any costs incurred to relocate this canal, including but not limited to the bike path and bridge and Brown Farm retention pond will be at the developer's expense. The calculations must be prepared and approved by City staff prior to preliminary PUD approval. 2. The alignment of the canal right-of-way along the southeast border of your property as indicated on the Importation Study plans does appear to be shifted somewhat to your side of the canal. The staff would have no problem with shifting the right-of-way to the east if engineering calcula- tions prove this to be feasible. The applicant will again be responsible for preparing the feasibility study and will bear any costs as a result of the relocation. 3. The affected property owners of the above relocation should be contacted and approve any changes. 4. The above calculations and revised PUD plans should be submitted by April 6, 1981. 5. The Pleasant Valley Canal representatives should be appraised of the proposed relocation prior to preliminary approval. Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. March 27, 1981 Page 2 Please feel free to contact our office should you have any questions. Also, please note that the date for the April Planning and Zoning Board meeting has been rescheduled for Thursday, April 30, 1981 at 6:30 p.m. Si ncerely, Joe Frank Senior Planner JF/fsr cc: Curt Smith Josh Richardson Lester M. Kaplan onsultan Lester,t M. Kaplan April 6, 1981 Department of Planning and Development City Hall Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Attn: Joe Frank, Senior Planner �►--Re U.D. Preliminary Plan Dear Joe: This letter responds to and acknowledges the written comments and statements from you to Gefroh and Associates throughout staff review of the Aspen Heights P.U.D. Prelimin- ary Plan. Such respondences are arranged according to the date of your correspondence. Correspondence dated March 18, 1981 - 1. Twelve foot of easement has been provided behind the sidewalk, in that the applicant does not intend to use gas for this project. 2. The centerline radius of Prescott Street has been changed from 160 feet to 165 feet. 3. All parking spaces are designed to not be within 50 feet of the flowline of a public local street intersection or major drive cut with the exception of the private parking lot off Fillmore Drive and across from Glendale Drive. The applicant is requesting a variance from 50 feet to 30 feet for this one location (copy enclosed). 4. The staff approved relocation or "shortcutting" of the canal eliminates the need for the small detention pond on the southeast corner of Somerville Drive and Longshire Drive and, in the process, staff concerns for the capacity of this deterti,)n pond. 5. The referenced area is not a man-made or important natural drainageway. The area will be eliminated with the overlot grading of the site without any disruption to site drainage. 6. The preliminary calculations submitted to the Public Work Department regarding the relocation of the canal are consiste'n- with the City's current storm drainage standards. These calc,.: 528 S. Howes Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 4,92-'3322 Department of Planning and Development April 6, 1981 Attn: Joe Frank, Senior Planner Page Two Re: Aspen Heights P.U.D. Preliminary Plan tions represent an addendum to the initial preliminary drainage plans. 7. The several trash containers of concern have been relocated on the revised plan. 8. The hydraulics of the canal will be greatly improved with the staff -approved canal relocation. 9. Distances between buildings and property lines are indicated on the revised plan. 10. The required note has been added to the revised plan. 11. The need for on -site detention areas has been substantially reduced with the relocation of the canal to the east. No problem exists in having detention areas comply with City engineering standards. 12. A site plan indicating the square footage and dimensions of each active open space area has been submitted along with the revised plan. 13. Additional screening along the north property line has been included on the revised plan. 14. The applicant understands that the Final Landscape Plan shall include landscaping adjacent to the buildings. 15. The note regarding potential increases to the total building coverage has been corrected on the revised plan. 16. The applicant has analyzed the potential for project phasing and proposes a three phase approach on the revised plan. The phases in sequences are intended as areas for P.U.D. Final Plan submission. 17. A note has been added to the revised plan indicating that 17-foot parking stalls may be used on the Final Plan for certain locations that abut landscaped areas or 6-foot sidewalks. 18. The property line to the west is designated by an existing 6- foot privacy fence; therefore, the suggested landscape screening would seem superfluous. However, the applicant has shown land- scaping between the parking areas and the existing fence. 19. The redesign of the canal resulting from its shortening and relocation will greatly improve the safety of its interplay with