Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSCENIC VIEWS PUD - FINAL - 3-96A - CORRESPONDENCE - (4)This concludes Staff comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies (i.e., Stormwater, Mapping/Drafting, PVL Ditch, etc.) continue to review this request. In order to stay on schedule for the July 22, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, please note the following deadlines: Plan revisions are due Wednesday, July 3, 1996, no later than 12:00 p.m. P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, and colored renderings are due by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, July 15, 1996. 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 4Nnfitellaas Project Planner encl. G. TCI of Fort Collins: 1. TCI of Fort Collins needs to have Tract B marked on the plat map as a utility easement or more easements on the rear of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 15. H. Public Service Company (PSCo): 1. This project definitely needs a utility coordination meeting (before plats get recorded). 2. Easement lines on "Final Site Plan" do not match easement lines on "Replat." 3. Conflicts with trees, asphalt, water, sewer, etc., are numerous. Plans have not been coordinated. I. Natural Resources: 1. The wetland areas to be disturbed must be mitigated within the detention area. The existing note needs to be modified to reflect this. The way it is currently worded, it appears to be dependent on what the Army Corps of Engineers chooses to require. 2. The wetlands to be disturbed need to be replaced at a ratio of not less than 1: 1. If there is any doubt as to mitigation success, then replacement should be at a ratio of 1.5:1. The notes and plans need to reflect this. J. Stormwater: 1. Comments from the Stormwater Utility will be forthcoming. V. - - - OTHER COMMENTS --- A. The necessary drainage easement(s) need to be exercised/completed B. Some rather significant costs to the developer that have not as of yet been specifically brought to your attention will likely be incurred. These costs are associated with the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees recently adopted by City Council. These fees will be collected at the time of building permit issuance, provided that a building permit application is not file prior to July 1, 1996. I've enclosed a summary sheet explaining the fee schedule. The formula is as follows: total square footage of structure _ number of units in structure = basis for per unit fee assessment EXANIPLE: 16,008 s.f. structure - 8 units = $2131 per unit (or $17,048 for whole structure) The total square footage of the structure is divided by the number of units contained therein; that resulting figure is used to determine the per unit fee. For instance, if an eight-plex has a total area of 16,008 square feet, the average area per unit would be 2001 s.f.; therefore, the Capital Improvement Expansion Fee would be set at $2131 per unit (for each of the 8 units, regardless of whether, , for example, one unit is just 700 s.f and another 3302 s.f.). If you have any questions regarding the breakdown of the fees that will be incurred with this development, please contact the Building Inspections Department. C. In your response letter to the staff comment letter sent out during Preliminary review, you stated that "the extent of privacy fencing will be determined with Final plans." Is any privacy fencing going to be proposed? If so, please indicate the locations and provide a design detailing the height, materials and colors. IV. - - - COMMENTS FROM OTHER REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS - - - A. Engineering: 1. See attached comments. B. Building Inspections: 1. See attached comments. C. Zoning: 1. Trash enclosures seem a bit sparse. For instance, buildings 21-24 have a long distance to get to their designated dumpster (that's 24 households). 2. Please provide bike racks. 3. There seems to be two building "Ts." 4. Will a fence exist between the development and the irrigation ditch? 5. Please show the distances from the building envelopes to the adjoining lot lines (only about half of them are shown). 6. In reference to landscaping note #7, what constitutes "minor changes?" Enough of them may require an Administrative Change. 7. Please show the parking stall widths. 8. Please provide building envelopes for the pool/clubhouse. D. Light and Power: 1. The drawing entitled as "Preliminary Layout" (page 2 of 16 by CES) shows two lot # 12's. 2. Due to locations of water, sewer, and garages, a utility coordination meeting is recommended. This meeting should include, at least, water, sewer, electric, and Public Service (gas). E. Water and Waste Water: 1. The following separation distances from water and sewer mains and services will have to be maintained: ten (10') feet from trees, and four (4') feet from shrubs. Please note the shrub separation distance in the landscape notes. 2. It will be necessary to route water and sanitary sewer lines around the island in front of the daycare. 3. A fire hydrant is needed at the end of the cul-de-sac at the north end of the project, near lot 10 of the duplex lots (Poudre Fire Authority). Similarly, Water and Wastewater has stated that five hydrants need to be installed and they have designated the locations where they need to be placed: 1) to the west of building 1, where the road begins to turn into the circle; 2) to the northwest of building 19, at the corner of the landscape peninsula at the north end of the row of parking stalls; 3) next to the Patmore Ash to the south of building 6 and west of the 8-car parking garage; 4) next to the Patmore Ash on the peninsula to the northeast of building 11 (on the corner); and, 5) on the corner to the north of building 13, next to the Summit Ash and behind the sidewalk. 4. The utilities needed to serve these hydrants, and all utilities in general, need to be coordinated with the landscape plans. F. Police: 1. Would recommend changing the name of the P.U.D. since a non -associated street with this. name already exists. Perhaps, "Foothill Views" or "Scenic Vistas." 3. Please modify note #11 to read as follows: "Building footprints shown are for illustrative purposes only. Final footprints may vary from those shown here but must, in all cases, be within the established building envelopes." 4. Please add a note, for the edification of the Homeowners' Association, stipulating that "trash hauling services for the entire PUD will be consolidated to a single hauler." Also, please stipulate that "recycling facilities will be accommodated within the trash enclosures." 5. In the Signature Block, the owner's certification needs space for notarization. U. - - - LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS --- The row of trees on the north side of the out parcel is not nearly as thick of continuous as indicated on the landscape plan. Thus, in an effort to provide screening and buffering for the out parcel, and pursuant to All Development Criteria A-2.13, we suggest providing a continuous row of trees (mix of coniferous and deciduous) between building 14 and the property line to the south. Similarly, we recommend some more trees on the north side of building 24, as well as on the north side of the duplexes (numbers 4-6) in order to provide a buffer between the duplexes and the home(s) to the north. 2. There is a significant amount of landscaping shown in the right-of-way; as you already know, a free permit will have to be obtained from the City Forester, Tim Buchanan, before any of it can be planted. 3. A couple of suggestions: ► Please provide a few trees along the west end of the parking area between buildings 5 and 16. ► Please provide two trees immediately to the west of building 18; this would compliment the trees across the street. A tree to the west of building 19 and another to the east of building 21, along with the two suggested earlier in this comment, would give this access drive a formal streetscape appearance, while helping to mitigate the potential visual impacts of parking. ► Please provide some screening around the two parking enclaves in the duplex portion of the PUD. III. - - - ELEVATION COMMENTS - - - As this is now a Final PUD, the "considerations ... [ofJ existing buildings, materials, and colors surrounding the site" should have already been accomplished. Please indicate, on the elevations or in the notes, the specific colors and materials being proposed for use on the building sides and roofs. 2. Please indicate the peak height of each type of structure. 10. Please provide public access easements (not just access easements) on all private streets. 11. Please provide bike racks and show them on the site plan. Will there be any fencing? 12. Please begin to think about and attempt to coordinate mailbox cluster locations. If possible, please show these locations on the revised site plan. 13. Will there be a gatelaccess to the pool area from the north? If so, please indicate the location on the revised site plan. 14. Please label the dashed lines running from the north of building 10, across the ditch, to the east property line. What is this? Future/potential right-of-way? 15. Would/is the applicant consider/considering scoring and/or coloring the pavement of the traffic circle? 16. The driveway on the western unit of duplex 14 appears to be just 19' deep; this and all driveways must be a minimum of twenty feet deep (from back of walk). Similarly, when twenty feet from the garage on the eastern unit of duplex 4 is measured off, it seems that there may be potential for conflict with the driveway for the western portion of this duplex; perhaps, extending the island between these garages a little further to the south would help. 17. Duplex 12's lot boundary is not closed. Does it follow the potential/future R.O.W. line, or does it extend to the roadway? Please close this property line. B. Land Use Breakdown Comments: You may lose a few parking spaces with the revisions suggested in this letter. Please adjust this section of the Land Use Breakdown accordingly. 2. The common open space is listed as 31.99% of the site area; however, according to my calculations it is actually 30.99%. Although minimal, please correct this slight discrepancy. 3. Under the "coverage" section of the land use breakdown, please make it clear that the "street ROW" is referring to public streets. 4. I could be wrong, but I count just 17 handicapped parking spaces, not 18. If 17 is correct, please adjust accordingly. 5. As far as I can tell there are no carports being proposed; therefore, no carports would be granted approval. Accordingly, please remove the word "carport" from every place that it appears under the land use breakdown, and leave it, simply, as "garage." C. General Notes Comments: 1. Please add the following phrase to the end of note number 2 or 9: "All private streets contain public access easements." This should also be noted on the plat. 2. Please modify the end of note number 6 as follows: "...using down directional, sharp cut-off high pressure sodium lighting to minimize overflow/light pollution." 6. The two dumpsters in the southwest corner of the site, serving buildings 20-24 do not seem to be conveniently or practically placed. Perhaps one of these should be relocated to either the western edge of the same landscape island, or to the landscape island on the south side of the two 6-car garages (across from building 22). 7. Two buildings are labeled as "Building 2." It seems that one of the 2's was left off the building 22 label. Please correct this. 8. The following is a couple of suggestions to help improve some specific pedestrian circulation problems/deficiencies: ► As the people living in building 1 will likely park in the structures and parking area immediately to the east, the sidewalk from the western side of the building should wrap around/continue all the way to that parking area, on both the north and south sides of the eight -car garage. ► The middle walkway between buildings 12 and 18 should connect all the way across. 91 The walk to the east of building 5 should continue to the northwest, making a connection to the garage/parking area. ► At the corner to the northeast of building 11, the walk should continue to the south, making a connection to the dumpster pad. ► At the east/west walk to the north of buildings 2 and 19, please provide a connection through the landscape island, alongside the tree, to the dumpster pad so that it would not be necessary to go all the way around the garages to get to the trash receptacle. The tree should probably be an ornamental so as not to tear up the added sidewalk. ► The walk on the west side of building 23 should continue from the south -westernmost unit, due east, to the walk along the west side of building 22, thereby providing a more convenient access from the affected units to the parking area. ► The paths connecting the public sidewalks to the open space/detention area in the northeast corner of the site are intended to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists; therefore, these routes should be at least six (6) feet in width. ► The walk in front of Duplex 13 should wrap around the corner to the northeast, providing a connection to the parking area to the northeast. ► The sidewalk around the cul-de-sac should end at the beginning of the parking area. This walk should also provide a meandering connection, behind duplex 12, to the ditch crossing. This addition would maintain the connection, that was approved as part of the Preliminary, from the open space to the public sidewalk along Overland Trail. 9. The "Statement of Planning Objectives" submitted with the Preliminary called for phased implementation; however, there are no phasing lines shown on the site/landscape plan. If phasing is planned, please delineate these phases on the site and landscape plans. June 14, 1996 Mr. Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Eldon, Staff has reviewed your submittal for the Scenic Views P.U.D., Final (#3-96A) and offers the following comments: I. _ - - SITE PLAN COMMENTS --- A. Plan Comments: The utility easement along West Elizabeth Street needs to be fifteen (15') feet wide. Please adjust accordingly. Given the potential for West Elizabeth Street to widen out to the 50' right-of-way line (not probable, but there's really no way of knowing what may or may not occur over time), the structures along the West Elizabeth Street frontage (buildings 1, 2, 19, 21, and 22) are too close to allow for adequate setbacks. As currently drawn, these setbacks are as little as ten (10') feet at building 19. We would like to see a minimum setback of twenty (20') feet from the right-of-way line along West Elizabeth Street (15' for utilities and 5' for landscaping). Realizing that this could substantially impact the site plan layout, a meeting to discuss this and other concerns would probably be a good idea. On the other hand, with the potential for the revised Master Street Plan to change the designation of West Elizabeth Street, you may want to consider delaying the processing of this submittal until after adoption of that Plan. What is the dashed line drawn around the north, west and south sides of the day care facility? Please provide a label if this line is necessary. If it is not necessary, please remove it. Any rows of parking consisting of fifteen (15) or more spaces should be broken into two (2) or more sections by the addition of a landscape peninsula. Rows with fourteen (14) standard stalls and a handicapped stall are actually rows of fifteen or more (i.e., the row in front of buildings 3 and 4); this row of parking should be broken into two sections. The row to the south of building 13 should probably be broken into two sections as well (it's 130' long). Will nine (9) dumpsters be enough to serve all 24 eight-plexes (192 households)? That's 2.66 eight-plexes, or 21.33 households, per dumpster. Please consider an additional dumpster(s).