Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GREENS AT COLLINDALE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 8-96 - CORRESPONDENCE -I Police: 1. Please consider building address locations and visibility. Easily readable addresses enhance emergency response times significantly. K. Water and Wastewater: Please add the following notes to the Landscape Plan: ► A four (4) foot separation distance for shrubs and a ten (10') foot separation distance for trees must be maintained from all water and sanitary sewer services. ► Developer shall ensure that the landscape plan is coordinated with the plans done by other consultants so that the proposed grading, storm drainage, or other construction does not conflict with nor preclude installation and maintenance of landscape elements on this plan. This concludes Staff comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request (i.e., Stormwater, Natural Resources, etc.). In order to stay on schedule for the May 20, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, please note the following deadlines: Plan revisions are due no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 1, 1996. P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, colored renderings are due Monday, May 13, 1996. "No plans or supporting documents will be accepted after the revision date (5/l/96)01 As the foregoing is rather extensive, I would suggest that we meet in order to review this letter together. Once you have had time to put some thought into these comments and the necessary revisions, please call me to arrange a meeting. If you should have any questions regarding these comments or if I could be of further assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me at 221-6641. Sincerely, Mitchell Haas Project Planner encl. V. - COMMENTS FROM OTHER REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS - - - A. Engineering: 1. See attached comments. B. Parks: 1. See attached comments from Jerry P. Brown. Please make any necessary resulting notes in the General Notes section of the site plan. C. Zoning: 1. On street parking pockets: minimum stall length is twenty-three (23) feet for a standard vehicle, and nineteen (19) feet for compact cars; overall, smaller dimensions are shown. Please refer to the Parking Lot Development Guide. 2. Is so much parking beyond that provided by driveways and garages necessary? The result is a plan that seems cramped with too much asphalt. 3. Please provide "typical" building dimensions for all three building types in the land use breakdown section of the site plan. 4. Please show bike rack locations, if any, on the site plan. 5. At least two (2) handicapped parking stalls are required. 6. Please indicate the distances from building envelopes to lot lines. D. Public Service Company: 1. This development, as presently drawn, does not provide space for utility lines to be installed outside of paved areas. Where "access, drainage, and utility easement" narrows to 34.00', there is inadequate space for utilities other than water and sewer due to clearance requirements from water and sewer lines. In order to extend gas facilities to this development, trenching will have to be done in the paved surface of Lemay Avenue. 2. There are maior problems with extension of natural gas facilities to this project. E. Cablevision: 1. TCI of Fort Collins would like to have the ten foot (10) drainage easement behind lots 15-20 as a drainage and utility easement. Also, is the area outside the building envelopes a blanket utility easement? F. Light and Power: 1. Light and Power will install its facilities four (4) feet behind the sidewalk on both sides of the street. This needs to be an easement area. 2. A horizontal clearance of ten (10) feet is required between electric lines and water or sewer lines. Water and sewer lines will need to be adjusted to maintain this ten (10) foot clearance. G. Poudre Fire Authority: 1. See Point Chart Comment A.(4), emergency access, above (IV.A.4.). H. US West: 1. See attached comments. L Building Inspections: 1. See attached comments from Sharon Getz. ► there should be a sidewalk connection between lots 32 and 33; ► there should be sidewalks in front of lots 12 and 13; ► the sidewalk in front of the structure on lot 15 does not provide access to the driveway; the connection shown should be replaced by a walk that wraps around the driveway access lane to the front door; ► there is no way to get to lots 20, 21, 22, or 26 without walking in the streets; and, ► part of the walkway out of lot 26 does not seem to provide access to anything. These problems are largely the result of building placement and orientation. To the greatest extent possible, please attempt to address these and any other pedestrian circulation problems that you may notice. 6. A-2.12, Setbacks: "Are the setbacks for building and other site plan elements (such as fences and parking facilities) consistent with the setbacks established in the surrounding neighborhood? In cases where a definable setback does not exist, is the proposed setback appropriate for the land use and streetscape proposed?" With the proposed layout, the building envelopes are as close .as one -to -two feet (1'-2') from the adjacent lot lines. Consequently, the resulting site plan is virtually consumed in building envelopes. Even with the zero -lot line configuration, there are numerous occasions where the setback on the opposite lot line is as little as two (T) feet. These setbacks, as well as those from Lemay Avenue, are not appropriate, nor are they compatible with those of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Also, see site plan comments 11 (last sentence), 13, and 21, as well as Elevation comment F, above. 7. In light of the described problems regarding street widths, building placement and orientation, vehicular circulation and parking, emergency access, pedestrian circulation, and setbacks, it is staffs opinion that it may be necessary to remove at least one building from these plans in order to adequately address all of the above noted concerns and requirements. The site needs only twenty (20) units to satisfy the City's minimum density requirement. This is not to say that it will be necessary to reduce the number of units to twenty, but thirty-four seems like too many units for this site, at least as currently laid out. . B. Residential Uses Point Chart H (Density Chart): Base Criterion "b," (650 feet from an existing transit stop): as the proposed development does not have a density of six dwelling units or more per acre, on a gross acreage basis, points cannot be awarded under this criterion. 2. Bonus Criterion `W': this project is eligible for five points for connecting to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane. Taking points for the other two point generators under this criterion would be using the same connection(s) more than once, or as we say, "double-dipping." Therefore, you are eligible for a total of five (5) points under criterion "w." 3. In total, according to our calculations, you are eligible for eighty-eight (88) points. This is still twenty-two (22) points more than the minimum necessary; however, we thought you should be aware of the change. IV. - - - POINT CHART COMMENTS - - - A. All Development Criteria Staff has no particular problem with supporting the requested variance from the solar -orientation requirement (A-1.1); however, with the current site plan, we will have little choice but to answer "no" to each of the following All Development Criteria: A-2.2, building placement and orientation; A-2.4, vehicular circulation and parking; A-2.5, emergency access; A-2.6, pedestrian circulation; and, A-2.12, setbacks. It should be noted that the LDGS states that (on page 8) "a No answer to any of the applicable numbered criteria will automatically exclude the development from further consideration ..." This comment is elaborated upon below. 2. A-2.2, Building Placement and Orientation: On the site and/or landscape plan, look at the relationship of the building on lots 19 and 20 to the buildings on lots 17, 18, 21 and 22. Also, the relationship of the building on lots 27 and 28 to the buildings on lots 25, 26, 29, 24, 11, and 12; the relationship of the buildings on lots 5-8 to the buildings on lots 9-12; and, the relationship of the building on lot 15 to the building on lot 14. The building placement and orientations do not adequately allow for or consider functional concerns, neighborhood integration, aesthetics, or privacy as described in A-2.2. A-2.4, Vehicular Circulation and Parking: this all development criteria asks the following question: "Is the street and parking system designed to be safe, efficient, convenient, and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including, without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles, and emergency vehicles)?" See site plan comments 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 20. The street and parking systems as shown on the current plans are not safe, efficient, convenient, or attractive. 4. A-2.5, Emergency Access: "Does the project provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and for those persons rendering fire protection and emergency services?" In their project comments, the Poudre Fire Authority stated that five (5) buildings are over 150' from fire access: two at the north end (lots 1 and 2), one in the center (lots 27 and 28), and two at the south end (lots 15/16 and lots 19/20). Further, the minimum width of roads for fire access is twenty (20) feet (see site plan comment 9, above). Buildings that are out of access may be fire sprinklered as an alternative; however, twenty (20') foot street widths must be provided. A-2.6, Pedestrian Circulation: "Does the pedestrian circulation system (a) accommodate pedestrian movement from the neighborhood to the site and throughout the proposed development safely and conveniently; and, (b) contribute to the attractiveness of the development?" Pedestrian movement accommodation from the neighborhood to the site is adequate; however, movement throughout the proposed development needs some work. For instance, the walk that wraps around the northern access way and toward the parking area ends in the middle of nowhere; this should continue to the parking area and line up with a connection to the sidewalk on the other side of the street (this "lining -up" should occur everywhere a walkway ends); at every location where the sidewalk hits a curb -cut, making the pedestrian cross a drive, there should be ramps provided and shown on the site plan; 3. See Land Use Breakdown comment 2 (I.B.2.), above. IL - - - LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS - - - A. Please continue the regularly spaced street trees for the entirety of the Lemay Avenue frontage. Just be careful not to impede sight distance requirements. B. Please provide a "Landscape Notes" section on the landscape plan. A preliminary Plant List/Breakdown, as well as a Key/Legend describing all symbols used on the plan would also be helpful. C. Please provide a North arrow on the landscape plan. r D. At the neighborhood meeting, it was stated that the trees along the south property line would be at least three (3") inches in caliper. Please specify this in the Landscape Notes that will be added to the plans. E. Under the first note (existing) provided on the landscape plan, please place the words "not shown" in parentheses (i.e., ... out buildings (not shown) to be demolished ... ). F. As with the Site Plan's General Notes comments, I've enclosed a couple of Landscape Notes sections done for other preliminary residential projects. Please refer to these as examples of the types of things that should or need to be stated on the plans, and draft a Landscape Notes section that will apply to your development. Please place these notes on the landscape plan. G. Please indicate the location of any and all existing trees on the site. M. - - - ELEVATION COMMENTS - - - A. Please provide the following labels: materials, roof types, heights, color options, and garages. B. Please provide elevations for the "F" and "G" units as well (with two-story options shown). C. Please provide a fencing detail as well as a development I.D. sign detail. D. The glass block windows do not appear to be consistent with the rest of the architecture and should probably not be included. This comment comes merely as a suggestion and is, in no way, a requirement. E. Similarly, I would suggest for the sake of continuity and consistency, continuing the border striping around all walls. For instance, the "end" elevation shows a stripetborder extending across the left half of the drawing; I would suggest continuing this band across the entirety of the building face. The same comment pertains to the "front" elevation as well. Again, this comment comes merely as a suggestion and is, in no way, a requirement. F. With the present layout of the site plan, these homes will probably not be allowed any windows or doors on many of the sides/ends (see Building Inspections comments, attached). 20. The "island" between Lots 18-22 will not work. Please delete this from the plans. 21. There is simply not enough room between Lemay Avenue and the structures on Lots 1, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 29-34. Setbacks along Lemay (an arterial) should be increased and filled with heavy landscaping to mitigate the visual and auditory impacts of this proximity. As currently shown, parts of these structures would be as little as twenty (20') feet from the arterial roadway. 22. At the abandoned curb -cut, the curb and gutter will have to be replaced. 23. The median in Lemay, across from the right-in/right-out access will have to be posted with a "One Way" sign. B. Land Use Breakdown Comments: Please title this section "Land Use Breakdown," and box it. 2. The part dealing with "Construction Phasing," should be put in the `General Notes" section of the site plan. If the development is to occur in phases, then it will be necessary to provide phasing lines on the site plan indicating what is to be built in which phase. When moving this section to the general notes, please adjust the note to read as follows: "Construction is anticipated to begin in Fall of 1996 and continue for approximately two years, until all units are built out." Under "parcel size and make-up," the "acres" column provides measurements to the one - hundredth of an acre. The same should be done for the percentage column (i.e., not 27%, but 26.80%). Also, there is a "19" under the percentage column; what is this in reference to? The private street and drives? Please put this number in the appropriate place. 4. Also under parcel size and make-up, please provide a "total" line. Please remove the "estimated floor area" section, or at least the square footage column of this section. A total square footage will suffice. 6. Please provide a setback summary in the Land Use Breakdown (i.e., side, front, rear, garage, along Lemay, etc.). 7. Please provide a summary of parking stalls (i.e., types and number of spaces, and typical dimensions for each type of space). Also, see Zoning comments (V.(C), below). The area of the property should be broken into gross area and net area, in both square footage and acreage. The same should be done for density calculations (i.e., gross density, net density). C. General Notes Comments: It will be necessary to provide a "General Notes" section on the site plan. I've enclosed some typical General Notes sections done for other residential projects. Please refer to these as examples of the types of things that should or need to be stated on the plans, and draft a General Notes section that will apply to your development. Please place these notes on the site plan. 8. There is a dotted line running through Lots 1 and 2, as well as Lemay Avenue. What is this line? An easement? Please label this line. 9. In many places, the drive aisles narrow down to as little as twelve (12') feet wide. In other places these widths are fourteen (14') feet and sixteen (16) feet. All roadways, private or otherwise, must be at least twenty (20') feet wide for fire lane access. Please make these changes. 10. The full -turn intersection (access to the south) is only twenty-two (22') feet wide. This is too narrow for a full -turn intersection, and must be at least twenty-four (24') feet wide. Please refer to the City's street standards and make the appropriate adjustments. 11. In a similar vein as comments 9 and 10 above, the garages appear to be just nineteen (19') feet wide. This will be very tight for two vehicles. Further, the driveway layouts appear to be conflictual; that is, all the garages of the 'B" units back into each other and have 2 two -car garages accessed from a single curb -cut which is as little as eleven (I I') feet wide. There is simply not enough room to have a car in the driveway of one unit and a car from the connected unit get into or out of its garage. This is the case on every `B" unit and most of the "F" units. Please refer to the City's Parking Lot Development Guide for appropriate dimensions for parking, and apply these dimensions to every place a car would be parked (i.e., driveways, parking stalls, and garages). All driveways must be at least twenty (20') feet deep so that parked cars will not overhang into the right-of-ways such as drives and/or sidewalks. 12. All non -driveway or garage parking stalls must have dimensions shown on the plans 13. The back-up space for the overflow/visitor parking near the southern access conflicts with the drive aisle. The parallel parking alongside Lot 25 is too close to the arterial (Lemay). The parking island in the center of the development has conflicting and inadequate back-up space. In affect, this area is double -loaded parking because there are six parking spaces in the island that share back-up space with cars parked in Lots 9 and 10. The standard/minimum width for the drive aisle between double -loaded parking areas is twenty (20') feet. As currently shown on the plans, this area is just twelve (12') feet wide. 14. Please indicate the square footage of each unit and lot. 15. To the extent possible, please indicate the proposed locations of all street lights. This may require some coordination with Light and Power. 16. At the neighborhood meeting, it was stated that there would be berming along the north property line; is this still the case? Similarly, it was stated at the neighborhood meeting that a "two-story option" would be available only for units designated as "F" or "G" units; is this still the case? If so, please specify this in the "General Notes" section of the site plan (see General Notes Comments, section C of this letter, below). 17. Please specify which, if any, garages are to be side -entry (i.e., not facing the street). "B" units only? 18. Please indicate all privates streets as a separate tract, and provide for public access easements on all streets. 19. At least two (2) designated handicapped parking stalls are required. April 2, 1996 Mr. Bob Sutter Architectural Horizons P.O. Box 271217 Fort Collins, CO 80527-1217 Dear Bob, Staff has reviewed your submittal for the Greens at Collindale P.U.D., Preliminary (#8-96) and offers the following comments: L - - - SITE PLAN COMMENTS --- A. Plan Comments: 1. The title should read as follows: "the Greens at Collindale, a Planned Unit Development." 2. Please orient the vicinity map and all associated labels toward one direction, preferably the same direction as'the rest of the site plan. 3. Please provide an approval/signature block on the site plan (i.e., Approved on this day ... by the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort Collins ... ). 4. To avoid confusion, please change labels which read "building limits line" to "building _envelope." 5. Similarly, please change labels which read "project sign on masonry wall' to "Development I.D. Sign." Along with this, please provide an inset detailing the size and materials of said signs as well as the associated earthwork (i.e., berming and landscaping). 6. All proposed fencing should be indicated by use of the appropriate symbology (i.e.,---x--- x---). We would also like an inset detailing the appearance, materials and height of the proposed fencing. If heights are to differ at different locations, please indicate this on the plans. Also, please remove all question marks from the plans (i.e., labels reading "walk?bikeway" and "masonry?rod-iron fence"). By the way, "rod -iron" is misspelled; the correct spelling is "wrought -iron." Please correct this spelling on both the plans and the written documentation. 7. Will there be dumpsters or individual trash collection? If there will be dumpsters, please indicate the proposed locations, and provide enclosures and screening. Enclosures must be of colors and materials matching those of the buildings. If individualized service is anticipated, please attempt to consolidate the hauling service by using just one hauler for the entire development.