Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARTINEZ PUD - PRELIMINARY - 4-97 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3). t- This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay on schedule for the April 28, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: Plan revisions are due no later than the end of the working day, April 9, 1997*. Please contact me for the number of folded revisions required for each document. * NO REVISIONS WILL BE REVIEWED AFTER THE ABOVE DEADLINE. IF REVISIONS ARE NOT RECEIVED BY THIS DATE, THE ITEM WILL EITHER GO TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS OR THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT MONTHS BOARD AGENDA. PMT's (photo reduction of Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Building Elevations to 8.5" x 11"), rendering (one each colored full-size Site Plan and/or Landscape Plan and Building Elevations), and 8 folded copies of the final full size Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Building Elevations revisions ( for the Planning and Zoning Board members packets) are due on April 21, 1997. Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns regarding these comments or if you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Sincerely, *teve Project Planner cc: Sheri Wamhoff Chris Maldonado Stormwater Utility Traffic Operations Parks Planning Mikal Torgerson Shear Engineering 14. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that there is an existing transit stop in this area along Cherry Street. 15. This development does not have a "Neighborhood Service Center" component as part of the proposal; therefore, the Neighborhood Service Center Point Chart is not relevant. 16. The Business Service Uses Point Chart is applicable because of the commercial component of the development. I interpret the points earned on the chart to be 36 of 50, for a 72% score (exceeding the minimum of 50% required). 17. The Residential Uses Density chart is applicable because of the residential components of the development. I interpret the points earned on the density chart to be 90 Base Points and maybe 5 or 10 Bonus Points (depending on the interpretation of pedestrian/bicycle connections). The 90 Base Points satisfies both the minimum requirement of 40 Base Points and the minimum of 60 total points needed to support the proposed residential density of 6.96 dwelling units per acre in the project. 18. There would appear to a total of 34 dwelling units in the co -housing portion of the development. The tally on the Site Plan apparently does not take into account the 1 unit in the community building. 19. For the purpose of clarity, the overall residential density for the development should be stated in the Project Notes on the Site Plan. This would be 63 dwelling units on 9.05 acres (not including the addition to Martinez Park and Parcel "A") _ 6.96 dwelling units per acre. 20. Landscaping, berming, fencing, etc. along the south property line should be provided as a buffer between this development and the existing railroad tracks. 21. Where will the people who live in the four northernmost co -housing buildings, adjacent to the park, park their vehicles? 22. Who will be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the north half of the single family lots, north of the private drive? 23. Paved bicycle/pedestrian trails should be made from this development into the park to the north. This will have an effect on Criterion W on the Residential Uses Density Chart. 24. The project appears to fall short of the required minimum points earned on the Downtown River Corridor Point Chart. We should meet to discuss this chart and potential deficiencies. d. There is not enough separation between curb & gutter and utility line locations along the private drive. Roger has not completed his review of the project and, therefore, additional comments will be forthcoming. Please contact him at 221-6681 if you have questions or want an update on his review. 12. Basil Harridan and Glen Schlueter of the Stormwater Utility offered the following comments: a. The drainage connection to the future outfall to the Poudre River must be shown on your plans. The City does not yet know the timing for this outfall but it is critical to this development. b. There is an existing storm sewer near the commercial building parcel that must be located and shown on your plans. Basil and Glen have not completed their review of the project and, therefore, additional comments will be forthcoming. Please contact them at 221-6589 if you have questions or want an update on their review. 13. Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering Department offered the following comments: a. The east access drive from Cherry Street needs to move about 12' to the west to properly align with Mason Street. b. The west access drive, from North Sherwood Street, must be 24' wide (at . a minimum). C. The perpendicular parking in the project does not meet City standards. With the narrow drives it will be very difficult to get in and out of these spaces. d. What part of North Sherwood Street is dedicated to the public and what part is private? Is street right-of-way or an access easement dedicated all the way into the park? e. Street cross -sections must be submitted for review. f. A 5' wide sidewalk must be provided along the Cherry Street frontage of this property. Sheri has not completed her review of the project and, therefore, additional comments will be forthcoming. Please contact her at 221-6750 if you have questions or want an update on her review. Please contact Kathleen, at 221-6608, if you have questions about these comments. 9. Janet Meisel of the Parks Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Please see attached comments regarding the co -housing component. b. Parks has not agreed at this point to vacate any easements on the northern edge of the property. This shall be negotiated with CMO in the development agreement. C. Parks has agreed to share parking with the PUD commercial site, but Parks will not maintain the parking area. d. Parks will want to look at the language on the PUD addressing mitigation of parking from co -housing. Please recognize the fact that ballfield lights will be used all summer until 11:00 p.m. e. The developer needs to look at the drainage on the co -housing site. No sheet flows will be allowed on the park site; therefore, you will need to look at other alternatives. Please contact Janet, at 221-6640, if you have questions about these comments. 10. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department stated that a little more detail is needed on the pedestrian access at the east end of the development. A red -lined copy of the Site Plan is enclosed with this letter. 11. Roger Buffington of the WaterMastewater Department offered the following comments: a. The preliminary utility plan is showing looping a water main to the north in the development. This is not acceptable. The water main needs to be looped to the south, to the intersection of Sherwood and Sycamore Streets. b. There is a 6" water service line to the Farm at Martinez. C. There is a question about whether the water lines in the single family area, that go between the homes back to the secondary dwelling units above the garages, will be services or mains. Manholes will be needed at the ends of these lines. County Engineering Departments, respectively. Fire lane access width is 20', reduced to 12' at gates or other limiting features, must be substantially level, and short in length. C. All exterior portions of a building or structure must be within 150' of an approved fire access roadway, unless specifically exempted by the Fire Marshall. An approved access roadway may be any public street, public alley, parking lot, private road, or fire lane which meets the access roadway criteria. Measurement of the 150' distance must be as a hoseline would be laid around the exterior of a building and the measurement mu = pass through a building. d. The alternative to access for firefighting is to fire sprinkler the structures in question. This does not account for police or ambulance services. Four of the proposed co -housing buildings located north along Martinez Park are out of access by PFA standards and a residential fire sprinkler system is required. Please contact Roger, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Janet McTague of the City Light & Power Department stated that this is an incredibly tight site for utilities. They are having difficulty completing a design for the electric facilities without a utility coordination meeting and without a variance from the Water/Wastewater Department on the 10' separation requirement. Janet can be reached at 221-6700 if you have questions about her concerns. 7. A copy of the comments and general information from Laurie D'Audney concerning the City's water conservation standards is attached to this letter. 8. Kathleen Reavis, the City's Transportation Planner for bicycle/pedestrian modes of transportation, offered the following comments: a. A bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Cherry Street is needed at Mason Street and another may be needed further to the west (to be consistent with the Civic Center plan). b. Bollards or other landscape design features should be placed within the wide pedestrian accessway off of Cherry Street to avoid people driving through this area. C. A bus stop needs to be accommodated west of the pedestrian access point on Cherry Street. d. Bicycle lanes are needed on Sherwood Street north of Sycamore Street. b. A service drive should be provided, maybe incorporated with the sidewalk, for the co -housing units adjacent to the park property. How will these people move in their furniture, etc? C. A subdivision plat is needed. d. Building envelopes must be shown in all areas for all types of structures. e. Dimensions and distances to the closest property lines must be show_ n for the co -housing and retail structures. . f. Guest parking space dimensions must be 9' in width if 90 degrees (perpendicular) and V in width if 0 degrees (parallel). g. Will the single family lots be expected to maintain the yards north of the private drive? With the drive as a physical separation between the homes and a portion of their lots, maintenance could be a problem. h. The four -square and bungalow homes are nice but, as shown, would seem to be out of the suggested price range. What is co -housing, actually? A term that is more common would be more appropriate. k. Project Note 5 on the Site Plan states that the maximum building height in this project is to be 35' but the commercial building is proposed to be 40', as shown on the elevations. It would be nice if the Site Plan were at a larger scale (1" = 50' or 1" = 60', etc.). 4. A copy of the comments received from Sharon Getz of the City Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 5. Are there any existing street rights -of -way on this site (property)? 6. Roger Frasco of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. Provisions must be made for emergency agencies such as police, fire, and ambulance to park within reasonable distances to structures to perform rescue and emergency services. b. All access roadways must be an all-weather driving surface capable of supporting fire apparatus. Surfaces may be asphalt, concrete, or compacted road base. Surface criteria may be obtained from City or Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Planning City of Fort Collins March 18, 1997 Jim Leach Wonderland Hill Development Company 745 Poplar Avenue Boulder, CO. 80304 Dear Jim, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Martinez PUD - Preliminary that was submitted to the City on February 24, 1997, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. Gary Huett of Public Service Company of Colorado has stated that there are major problems with this development proposal, particularly in the single family area. The building setbacks from the rear edges of the sidewalks are inadequate to allow for installation of electric and natural gas facilities behind sidewalks and to provide adequate clearance from proposed water lines. The side lot I; separations between buildings are inadequate to allow for installation of electric and natural gas facilities and provide clearance from water and/or sanitary sewer lines. In the multi -family area there are potential conflicts with car ports and landscaping. There needs to be a utility coordination meeting for this proposed development! 2. TCI of Fort Collins (cable television) stated that they would like to see a plat map that shows where utility easements are proposed. The Landscape Plan does not give them information of this type. At this time the project would be unserviceable due to inadequate easements. 3. Gary Lopez of the City Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. The open carport concept should be re -thought. People do want garages, re: Willow Lane Townhome project. Carports would not compliment the residential buildings. Elevations for the carports (garages) must be submitted for review. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 • TDD (970) 224-6002