HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONE RIDGE PUD FOURTH FIRST PHASE AMENDED - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-07-15M
o
March 27, 1994 (File: 9431LT01)
o
�Z
Mr. Mike Herzig
Fort Collins Development Engineer
o
P.O. Box 580
r
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
0
Zz
Dear Mike:
J
Stone Ridge Village is proposing to build a 28 foot wide
J
public street on a hammerhead cul-de-sac street in the Fourth
Filing in the development. The cul-de-sac is named Waterstone
Court. According to the Fort Collins Design__Criteria and
>
Standards_ for Streets, this street width will require a
variance by the City of Fort Collins.
z
a
Z
The reasons for requesting/granting this variance are listed
a
below:
m
r
- The street proposed to be 28 feet wide will have less
than '750 ADT on it. This cul-de-sac would generate thr�
following daily traffic: Waterstone Court (20 d.u.) -
195 ADT. The generated traffic volumes would be at the
point where the two ends of the hammerhead cul-de-sac
meet to intersect with the divided portion of Waterstone
Court. These volumes are far below the threshold level
in the "Fort Collins Standards." There is not likely to
be any external traffic passing through this cul-de-sac.
Therefore, the aforementioned traffic volumes will be a
worst case level for the cul-de-sac.
- The street that is proposed to be 28 feet is a cul-de-
sac.
- The cul-de-sac does not access an arterial street.
- This is primarily a large lot development. The density
is considered to be medium (2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units per
w
acre). Based upon criteria in "Recommended Guidelines
for Subdivision Streets, A Recommended Practice,"
w
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1984, the pavement
w
J
width should be 28-34 feet. The proposed 28 feet meets
n-
this recommended practice.
- Typical developments with large lot sizes provide more
x
than four off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit.
A comparable development is the First Filing of Clarendon
w
2
Hills. Based upon observation at various times on a
0
2
number of days, the average number of vehicles parked on
7
Hinsdale Drive in Clarendon Hills was 3 in a length of
-�
1300 feet. This observation was conducted where there
were dwelling units on both sides of the street. The
3
number of parked, on -street vehicles would enable
w
LL
Hinsdale Drive to have been a 28 foot wide street with
=
s
no traffic or parking problems.
F-
I recommend that the cul-de-sac portion of Waterstone Court
`c
in Stone Ridge Village be 28 feet wide (curb to curb). I
would further recommend that parking be allowed on both sides
of the street, if at least four off-street parking spaces are
provided per dwelling unit.
If you have any questions or desire additional information,
do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerelk
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
INP
Engineering Consultants
2047 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins Colorado 80521
370;48P 5922
FAX 970/482-6368
Mr. Mike Herzig
City of Fort Collins
Community Development Dept.
281 N. Col!f;ge Avenue
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
PROJECT: Stone Ridge Fourth Filinq -Phase 1
PROJECT NO.: 503-00
Dear Mike;
February 23, 1996
Per our recent phone conversation, I am providing you this revised information which can
be used in the preparation of the Development Agreement for this project. This information
pe ains to over sizing costs for the Horsetooth Road street improvements. This revised
information ref;ects the deletion of all over sizing costs for County Road 9, and deletion
of the over sizing costs for the 3 feet of additional sidexalk width along Horsetooth Road,
said 3 feet of additional width to serve as a bike path.
Horsetooth Road:
F'avemen'
2'
x 645' = 143 s.y.
x $14.70/s.y.* _
C.
$2107
JIdF_'-Walk
1'
x 785' = 785 s.f.
x $1.85/s.f. _
$1452
Bas-;d on 10-112" full depth asphalt pavement section
r`�.�int�i Rnctd y
**Deleted'*
Mike., I hope this revised information will be helpful. Please feel free to contact me with
a,•;y guee.tions ynu may have regarding this information.
Respectfully,
RBI) Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Daniel C. Herlihey
cc: Les Kaplan
Denver 303/458-5526
INS:
Engineering Consultants
209 S Melhrum
Foil colhns. Colorarlu 60521
303i48225022
FAX 30,482
Mr. Mike Herzig
City of Fort Collins
Community Development Dept.
281 N. College Avenue
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
PROJECT: Stone Ridge Fourth Filing - Phase 1
PROJECT NO.: 503-006
Dear Mike;
February 6, 1996
At your request, I am providing the following information which can be used in the
preparation of the Development Agreement for this project. This information pertains to
over sizing costs for the Horsetooth Road and County Road 9 street improvements.
Horsetooth Road
Pavement 2' x 645' = 143 s.y. x $14.70/s.y.' _
Sidewalk 1' x 295' = 295 s.f. x $1.85/s.f. _
3' x 490' = 1470 s.f. x $1.85/s.f. _
County Road 9
Pavement '" 31" x 614' = 2115 s.y. x $11.20/s.y." _
Sidewalk 3' x 587' = 1761 s.f. x $1.85/s.f. _
Based on 10-1 /2" full depth asphalt pavement section
Based on 8" full depth asphalt pavement section
$2107
$546
$2720 �f/el i
3 s 7 10
$237em
`$3258'
Mike, I hope this information will be helpful. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions you may have regarding this information.
Respectfully,
RBD Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Daniel C. Herlihey
cc: Les Kaplan
Denver 503/45&5526
Transpor on Services
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 5, 1996
TO: John Fischbach, City Manager
FROM: Mike Herzig, Development Engineering Manager
RE: Stone Ridge P.U.D., Fourth Filing, Phase 1
Attached for your signature are 3 copies of the development agreement for the above titled
development project. The copies have all been signed by the developer and other appropriate
parties, where applicable.
STREET OVERSIZING
For your information the following is the estimated amount of street oversizing reimbursement
that the developer is due upon completion of the listed street improvements.
Horsetooth Road $3,600 for pavement and sidewalk along 650 feet of frontage.
OTHER INFORMATION OF INTEREST
The developer has a disagreement with the City staff regarding his having to pay for the
construction of the local street portion of pavement along the County Road 9 frontage of his
development. He believes that since he did not take access from County Road 9 (the City did not
require it) and virtually none of the traffic from his development will drive on County Road 9 to
get to other locations in the City, he should not have to pay for pavement in the street. I disagree
The City Code says all development improves their frontages on streets. However, the City
Attorney's Office did not believe we had a strong enough position to say absolutely that the Code
requirement is just.
The developer and the City agreed that the requirement would remain in the development
agreement. However, an agreement was added to the development agreement as Exhibit "C"
describing our differences in of opinions, allowing this 1 st phase of the development to proceed
with the paving issue to be resolved for the 2nd phase of the development. This gave us more
time to research our position without adding the City risk of adding delay losses if the developer
2P.I Nni'th Co)lle: - A%enur. • PP, I;.r, SRO • }nrt Collins, CC) hq 2_p590 [or-0i 111-bidl5
is correct.
This is a president setting issue. It could result one developer developing at the end of a deadend
street saying they only have to construct street improvements from their point of access towards
the City. The next developer constructs the rest of the first developer's frontage plus his frontage
to his access point. Then it goes on and on.
Phase 2 of the development is being designed now. So, we are beginning to work on this issue.
Following your review of the agreement, please sign the tabbed pages and forward this memo and
the agreements to the City Clerk for further processing.
cc: Ron Phillips
Gary Diede
Matt Baker