Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTOCKBRIDGE VILLAGE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2008-07-31PLANNING DIVISION EXT. 655 November 28, 1980 Lester Kaplan, Planning Consultant 528 S. Howes Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Les, The staff has reviewed the master plan for Section 34 and the preliminary plans of the Stockbridge P.U.D. and offers the following comments: Master Plan 1. Per P.U.D. regulations, a master drainage plan will be required. None has been submitted. 2. The existing City water system does not have adequate pressure to provide adequate fire protection and domestic service to most of the development. The staff is currently investigating alternatives to relieve this problem. The applicant should work with staff to develop a suitable solution. 3. Until Troutman Parkway is built west of Shields Street, Area 3 will have only one access point --the extension of Michie Drive. The staff is recommending that Westfield Drive be extended across the ditch to this loop street. In the event that Troutman Parkway is constructed prior to or concurrent with the development of Area 3, this extension will not N be required. — - 4. No detention or drainage will be accepted from P.U.D. on/or across park property. 5. An 8" high pressure natural gas transmission pipeline exists along Shields Street. Western Slope Gas Co. should be contacted prior to any excava- tion in or near that line. Preliminary Plans 1. The applicants will be required to provide sewer designs up to and including the Rossborough Subdivision. 2. All arterial streets shall be improved with development of site. 3. Horsetooth Road will be paved 70', flowline to flowline. 4. The entrances to the multi -family drives should be located a minimum of 50' from edge of driveway to flowline of abutting public street intersection. 5. The arterial street section is not in conformance with City standards. LesterConsU►tans �++' M. Kaplan Mauri Rupel Department of City Hall Fort Collins, Dear Mauri: Public Works K�] December 8, 1980 RE: Section 34 Ditch Easement I understand from the November 28, 1980, staff comments for the Stockbrid e Villa e P.U.D. that the staff questions the adequacy o the t. easement for the Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal. According to my conversation with John Michie, the Board Chairman for this irrigation company, a total 50 ft. easement is required; however, for Section 34 a 15 ft. easement is acceptable on the higher side of the canal, provided that 35 ft. is assured for the lower side. I represent the owner of the southeast k of the northeast , of this section for the master plan of the northeast ; and could indicate a 35 ft. reservation on the master plan, if you prefer. This information deals with easement width requirements only and does not represent the complete comments and concerns from Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal regarding planning and development in Section 34. Very truly yours, Lester M. Kaplan LMK/jt On behalf of Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal, the above - stated easement requirements for Section 34 are acceptable. ,Jbhn Michie DATE: - - --528 S. Howes Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-3322 - ENGINEERING DIVISION December 10, 1980 RECEIVED Mr. Lester Kaplan 528 S. Howes Ft. Collins, Colorado Dear Les: DEC 11 1980 Planning Department Re: Street variance request Stockbridge, 1st Filing P.U.D. In reference to Your variance request of December 8, 1980 we are in general agreement. We will designate Woburn Way as a 25 mph design speed local street. This designation is due to its short length, 380 feet +, and that the major cross traffic will be using Andover Drive arri Walpole Drive. We are also in agreement with varying the tangent between the two horizontal curves from the 50 feet as required for 25 mph streets to 25 feet. This variance is due to the combination of lack of curb cuts (3 only), no buildings on the north side of the street, thus improving site distance, and the traffic flaw pattern of the area. We shall require that engineer data be given during final to support the standard site distance. We feel that the walk along the north side is a necessary part of the street. This is due to the area being designated an active open area and the possibility of a Transfort stop in the area. Your second request of varying Andover Drive east of Seneca Street is also acceptable due to the increased overflow parking off street. We will, however, require the following: 1) No Parking signs will be designated at 150 foot intervals on the final plan and work will be coordinated with the Traffic Department during installation of the sidewalk, and 2) the sidewalk on the interior sine of Andover Drive will be required due to the parking Frain adjacent to this side. These variances will remain in force as long as no major changes occur in the street layout or in the number of parking areas. G� Maurice Rupel, P.E. & L.S. Assistant City Engineer - Develgment cc: �db Lee, Traffic Joe Frank, Planning ENGINEERING DIVISION February 9, 1982 Brothers 3 Realty Milton Alsum 1528 N. Lincoln Loveland, Colorado 80537 Re: Stockbridge Village PUD - Phase I Dear Mr. Alsum: The City Engineer's office has been informed of the extensive amount of soil erosion in the Stockbridge subdivision during the last two (2) months. We must request that your firm take immediate action to control this erosion problem. In addition, the Pleasant Valley irrigation ditch adjacent to your east property boundary is to be cleaned of all accumulated debris due to this erosion. These requirements are to be canpleted by March 1, 1982. Sincerely, David Stringer Chief Construction Inspector %W BRMWER5 HE1W7-r-.#VYESTMENTS February 15, 1982 Mr. David Stringer Chief Construction Inspector City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Stockbridge Village PUD - Dear Mr. Stringer: I am in receipt of your letter of February 9, 1982, and wish to respond as follows. I have inspected the property of which you received a complaint of soil erosion into the Pleasant Valley Irrigation Ditch. I am not exactly sure how that erosion occurred, be- cause the land is practically flat and at present has two holding ponds. It appears that there was a heavy runoff for a short period of time, which I do not recall that such a condition happened the past several months. If you have any information on this, I would appreciate your giving me a call. In the meantime, I will have someone clean the ditch and try to stop the erosion that is occuring. I'd hoped to have the project well underway as far as development is concerned; however, for the past six months the City of Fort Collins and I have been working diligently in trying to get an easement for the sewer line. The City has taken full res- ponsibility and is doing everything they can to expedite, which I am in appreciation of; however, there have been problems beyond their control. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and if you have any suggestions at all, I sure would appreciate hearing from you. Sincerely, Als esident Brothers 11311, Inc. MA/kt 1528 NORTH LINCOLN AVENUE • LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 669-3000 :. %W Cn CITY OF FORT COLLINS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION February 21, 1985 Milton J. Alsum President Brothers "3", Inc. 1528 North Lincoln Avenue Loveland, Co 80537 Dear Mr. Alsum, The staff has reviewed your request for extension of the final approval of the Stockbridge PUD, phase 1. The project was given original approval on May 26, 1981. Two six-month extension were granted administratively by the Planning Staff. The normal expiration date was November 26, 1984. In keeping with past policy, any further extensions to the PUD must be granted only by the Planning and Zoning Board, after recommendation by City Staff. In reviewing the current documents, a number of engineering problems were identified, including: 1. No pans on collectors (Seneca at Horsetooth); 2. Additional off -site street improvement requirements needs to be evaluated; 3. Sidewalks need to be designed to current City standards; 4. Details of utility plans need to be updated; 5. Handicapped ramps will need to be provided at all corners; 6. Pavement sections do not meet current standards, and; 7. Signatures from the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Co. for relocation of the ditch are required. Before the staff will recommend approval of the one-year extension, the above items need to be corrected. Revisions to the utility plans reflecting the above comments should be received by the office no later than Friday, March 1, 1985. The Planning and Zoning Board would consider this item at their March 25 meeting. �+. ...- �.. ..... .... �.aI -I .v, -, a - , c., wuu m. I .I...VV UUJGL JU J)" I - 0 , JU DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me or Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator, in this office. Sincerely, Joe Frank Senior City Planner CC: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator Sam Mutch, Planning Director rrr ` d CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION March 13, 1985 Milton J. Alsum President Brothers "3", Inc. 1528 N. Lincoln Avenue Loveland, CO 80537 Dear Mr, Alsum: I thought I should try to summarize the findings of Staff in regard to the request for extension of the final approval of the Stockbridge PUD, Phase 1. As you know, the project was due to expire on November 26, 1984. Any further extensions must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. In reviewing extensions to final approvals, the City staff and Planning Board reviews the project for conformance to current standards and requirements. In a letter dated February 21, 1985, the staff identified a number of engineering problems that needed to be corrected before the staff could recommend approval of the extension. The most significant item was the off -site street improvement requirement. Since the approval of the PUD, the City has adopted an "off -site street improvement" requirement which requires all development to have access to an improved arterial street. Any project which does not have direct access to an improved arterial street must improve off -site streets to include, as a minimum, a thirty-six foot (36') wide paved section on an adequate base. In the case of the Stockbridge PUD, there would be some off -site improvements needed to Horsetooth Road in addition to the frontage along your property. In order to identify the extent of the required off -site improvements, the Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board will need a professionally prepared Traffic Impact Report. Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, should be contacted regarding the content of this report. At this point, the staff feels that the study will show the need for off -site improvements with this project. The Planning and Zoning Board has consistently required these improvements if the need is shown to be there. The approved utility plans for the Stockbridge PUD, Phase 1 would need to be updated to reflect the off -site improvements as well as the other needed changes. The public improvements will not be required to be installed until such time as development of the project takes place. DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION Stockbridge Letter., 3/13/85 - Page 2 rr/ I need to have your decision as to whether you intend to pursue the extension of the final approval of the PUD and preparation of the Traffic Impact Report and revisions to the utility plans as needed. I would like your response to this matter within the next week. If you wish to proceed, I would recommend that you contact Bonnie Tripoli to work out a timely schedule for submitting the required information. I hope that this information clears up some of the confusion. If you should require any additional information, please feel free to call me. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. IC el ,, jv r1 Joe Frank Senior City Planner i CC: Sam Mutch, Planning Director Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator Devel`,nent Services Planning Department Citv of Fort Collins February 28, 1989 United Bank Attn. Robert Sharritt P.O. Box 570 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Sharritt, On May 26, 1981, the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board granted final approval to the Stockbridge P.U.D., located south of Horsetooth Road between Taft Hill Road and hre s [reet. On June 25, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Board granted an extension of final approval until November 26, 1984. Section 118-83 H. (3) of the City Code provides that the applicant must undertake and complete the development of an approved final planned unit development plan within the specified time period. Failure to develop within the specified time limit and improvement requirements shall cause forfeiture of the right to proceed under the final plan. Our records indicate that all engineering improvements have not been installed and completed. Therefore, the final PUD has expired. If you should have any questions regarding how to proceed with this project, please feet free to call me. ;Sincer�el Tom Peterson, Planning Director cc. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. 13ox 580 • Port Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 %W *40 Lester Kaplan November 28, 1980 Page 2 6. The staff questions the 15' ditch easement. Ditch company approval will be required prior to development approval. 7. Site specific drainage report is required for each phase of development. 8. Several of the suggested widths and curve radii of streets do not meet City standards. The applicant should provide justification for these variances. 9. Based on the proposed 3500 sq. ft. playground, the maximum occupancy of the Day Care Center would be 18 children. 10. Building envelope dimensions must be indicated for commercial and day care centers, including distance of envelopes to lot lines. 11. The "typical patio home" detail should show the distance from the envelope to the lot line, not the driveway. Plan should indicate distance from the envelope to each lot line. 12. Applicant should provide planning objectives for the site plan. 13. All streets and fire hydrants to be in service before construction begins. 14. All exterior portions of exterior walls of the first story of all structures must be within 150' of access street. 15. There appears to be excessive street and parking pavement within the plan. The applicant should re-evaluate the plan in terms of eliminating all unnecessary pavement. 16. All front doors of garages should be set back a minimum of 19' from outside edge of sidewalks or curbs. The "typical 4-plex detail" does not appear to meet this requirement. 17. The day care center playground should not be considered to satisfy the open space requirement for the residential uses. 18. The applicant should provide additional detail as to proposed buffering of day care center from abutting residential units. 19. The area which is designated as "possible future access" to the out - parcel on the northwest corner of the development should not be considered as "active open space". 20. Applicant should investigate possibility of transit stop along Horsetooth frontage. 21. Sidewalks will be required along both sides of all streets. 22. Architectural elevations of commercial and day care center? EAF Lester Kaplan November 28, 1980 Page 3 23. Pleasant Valley Avenue should be named Seneca Street. 24. T h e open space figure of 24% appears to be incorrect, but rather should be 42%. Please clarify. Before the staff can proceed with processing of the application for development approval, a revised site plan reflecting the above comments will be required. For those items that cannot be shown on the site plan, a letter from the applicant resolving these issues should be submitted. The above materials should be delivered to this office no later than December 10, 1980. Also, a rendered set of the site plan and architectural drawings, and an 8" x 11" PDTi positive or good reduction of all site plans and maps must be submitted on December 16. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. ncerely nielr Planner JF/se Lesterco cSuitian M- -Kaplan' Apr Roger Krempel, Director Department of Public Works City Hall Fort Collins, CO RE: Horsetooth-Harmony West Annexation Dear Roger: As we discusssed briefly at the April 1, 198o City Council meeting, the question of water and sanitary sewer utility service to Section 34 could become a major new issue between the City and the districts. It is my understanding that South Fort Collins Sanita- tion District expects to serve the south half of the Section despite the City's plans for the Warren Trunk -line extension east -west through the Section. Also, Loveland -Fort Collins District water can serve the entire Section, even though the City plans to extend a water line south at Shields Street. My clients own approximately 366 acres of land with this Section. On their behalf, I can state that we want to be supportive of City objectives; however, we do not want to become embroiled in a potential legal confrontation between the City and the districts. Please review this situation and advise me as to the City's position on utility service to this Section. Attached for your convenience is an existing and proposed (incomplete) Utility line location map for the area in question. Sincerely yours, cc: Curt Smith Lester M. Kaplan John Arnold —528 S.Howes Fort Collins. Colorado 80524 (303) 482-3322 --- �w *0 CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES TO: Joe Frank, Planner ,�� THRU: Michael B. Smith, Director of Operations//A//j FROM: James C. Hibbard, Water Systems Manager 'r ki— RE: Section 34 �V DATE: November 20, 1980 As you know, there has been considerable discussion concerning water service to Section 34, R69W, T7N. The Water Department has been concerned about the lack of pressure in this area and as a result have been somewhat vague about what we could or could not serve. The submittal of Stockbridge Village PUD has brought this question to the forefront. Based on recent hydraulic analysis, it appears the existing City water system will not have adequate pressure to provide adequate fire protection and domestic service to Stockbridge Village. Static water pressure would be about 35 PSI, which is marginal. Dynamic pressure however, would got!O ow as 10 PSI, is not acceptable. The City is working on a master plan tdd alleviate low pressure problems at various locations on the west side of town which could include this area. This planning will not be complete until mid 1981 however. There appear to be three alternatives for providing water service to Stock- bridge PUD prior to construction of the Master Plan now being developed. Obtain water from the Ft. Collins -Loveland Water District. The District has adequate pressure to serve Section 34. It is our understanding how- ever that the District has transmission problems of its own. A proposed tank will probably alleviate part of this problem but to what extent and for how long is unknown. It is prudent to note the recent City annexa- tions of District territory will allow urban densities in the heart of the District. This will tend to complicate any transmission problems now experienced and the addition of Stockbridge could reduce the ability of the District to provide adequate fire flows in its' southern portions.. The District Board should be consulted concerning their ability to serve Stockbridge. 2. Obtain water from the City through a temporary closed pumping system. A temporary pumping facility could be built in order to serve Stockbridge, similar to one recently completed serving a portion of Section 21. Upon completion of the pressure zone master plan, such facilities would be used or phased out, as indicated by the plan. The City would share in the costs for such a station to whatever extent the City received benefit by alleviating existing low pressure areas. %w •O Joe Frank, Planner Section 34 November 20, 1980 A cooperative agreeme Loveland Water Distri a tap on the District water to the District the type of problems of City and District in Stockbridge; this nt could be made between the City and the Ft. Collins- ct. Stockbridge could be a City customer served by line. In exchange for this, the City would return at a location beneficial to the District. Given experienced by the District last summer, the proximity transmission lines, and the need for higher pressure type of proposal would seem to be the most efficient. There would be a benefit to the City from Alternative 2 and an apparent benefit to both the City and the District from Alternative 3. I therefore recommend we begin negotiations with the District and pursue Alternative 3. Failing this, plans should be made to implement Alternative 2. LesterConsU►tannt %w M. I(aplar December 8, 1980 Mauri Rupel, Assistant City Engineer -Development Department of Public Works City Hall Fort Collins, CO RE: Stockbridge P.U.D. Dear Mauri: This letter is intended as a request for variances from the City's Street Design Standards set forth on November 19. The streets in question are Woburn Way and the Andover Drive loop street as shown on the Stockbridge P.U.D. Preliminary Plan, scheduled for the December 22, 1980 meeting of the Plan- ning and Zoning Board. The nature and justification for these variance requests are as follows: Woburn Way - A request to vary the minimum tangent between curves for a 25 mph local street type from 50 ft. to a 25 ft. Woburn Way is a 380± ft. local street which is expected to serve approximately 25 units. As requested by the Engineer- ing Division the applicant has increased the pavement width from 28 ft. to 36 ft. The street is single -loaded to the south and contains only 3 curb cuts. The requested reduction to the minimum tangent curve at the center of the street should not pose a safety problem because of its particular design and use characteristics. Namely, the narrower tangent is clearly visible with excellent lines -of -sight and easily anticipated. The street is single -loaded and has very limited curb cut interruption, thereby, minimizing speed changes. The 36 ft. width improves visibility and turning ease. Due to its loca- tion and single -loaded design, it is unlikely that extensive - - -----528 S. Howes Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-3322 - 1✓ 15 Page Two Mauri Rupel December 8, 1980 on -street parking will occur on the north side, therefore, affirming ease of traffic movement on this street. Woburn Way is relatively short and will serve as a low. -use local street. Because the reduced tangent is mid -block rather than at an intersection, it is more visible and easily negotiated. The variance request to Woburn Way also includes elimin- ating the public sidewalk requirement on the north side. This is appropriate in light of the single -loaded design of the street. The sidewalk on the west side of Waterbury Lane will be extended north to the sidewalk on the south side of Horsetooth Road. Andover Drive (loop) - A request to vary the street width from 36 ft. to 28 ft. In general, it appears that the justification for a 36 ft. wide street is based upon the needs of emergency and service vehicles, the demand for on -street "overflow" parking, and the movement requirements for vehicles. Based upon these three general criteria the proposed 28 ft. wide street is sufficient. The 40 townhome units on the Andover Drive loop are all within the 150 ft. minimum distance requirement for fire service. There are sufficient parking spaces along the street for both temporary service vehicles and overflow parking: Because the road is single -loaded, the interior side has no curb cuts and provides parking for approximately 38 vehicles. These on -street parking spaces would certainly seem adequate, particularly in light of the fact that the on -site parking provides 2 parking spaces per unit, while at least 50 percent of the units will be 2 bedroom which requires only 1.75 spaces per unit. Further- more, all front doors of garages are set back a minimum of 19 ft. from the outside edge of sidewalks or curbs, thereby, providing space for an additional 40 parking space in excess of the P.U.D. requirement. Were the street widened to 36 ft. allowing for parking on both sides, then due to the number of curb cuts of the outside of the street, parking would be increased by not more than 15 spaces. The additional asphalt required for this small increase hardly seems worth the expense. The variance request to the Andover Drive loop street width also includes eliminating the public sidewalk requirement for the inside of the loop. As a practical matter, a sidewalk M Page Three Mauri Rupel December 8, 1980 at that location would receive extremely little use, and the sidewalk on the outside of the loop certainly is adequate for pedestrian circulation between residencies. Should you have any questions regarding these street variance requests, please contact me. Thank you for your consi- deration of the justifications for these variances from the recent street design standards. Very truly yours, Lester M. Kaplan LMK/jt cc: Joe Frank