The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHARMONY RIDGE PUD, PHASE 2 (2ND FILING) - PRELIMINARY / FINAL - 49-95D - CORRESPONDENCE - OTHER JURISDICTIONSSteve Off - Harmo—F;6dge 2nd Filing density requirements Page 1 From: Marc Virata To: Bob Blanchard, Dave Stringer, Steve Olt Date: Thu, Mar 23, 2000 10:35 AM Subject: Harmony Ridge 2nd Filing density requirements A utility coordination meeting was held this morning for the Harmony Ridge 2nd Filing. The feeling expressed by the utilities present (gas, cable, water & sewer) was that the project does not meet their respective requirements because of the private drives (not having the typical utility easement widths a public street may have), the close proximity of the units to these private drives, and the amount of open space between the units to install services. In addition, PFA is not in favor of the layout from a public safety standpoint, as this project will have 120+ single family attached units all off of private drives. Because private drives cannot be named, PFA feels as a safety issue that the development would be better served by a public or private street internal development that will allow these roadways to be named. The developer has asserted that they cannot use a public/private street internal network and meet their density requirement at the same time because of the additional road/easement width required for a public/private streets. Also, to design the roadways to public/private street standards, the horizontal alignments needed to meet engineering requirements would further hamper on their ability to meet their density. The utilities and PFA are in favor of a reduction in density of this development and were encouraged by the fact that the developer wishes the reduction in density as well. I don't fully know the ramifications of reducing their density, it was my understanding that this issue was raised before Growth Managment Lead Team and a reduction in density was denied. In light of the utilities and PFA having concerns with the present proposal and the developer being in favor of reducing the density and using a public/private street design, I've been asked to raise this issue with the Planning Department. As a side note, apparently, it was explained to me that if they were to reduce their density, they would have to go under the Land Use Code, and Natural Resources would require under the LUC that a 400' buffer is created, rendering around 90% of the project undevelopable. Another issue that was raised this morning is that the developer was told that they did not provide enough landscaping with the project, however the utilities were concerned with some of the landscaping already proposed and how trees appear to be situated over locations where utility lines are needed. The developer does not think they can meet their landscaping requirements for their density without conflicting with the utilities. I am just raising the concerns expressed by the utilities and PFA this morning and am neutral on this issue, though I would want to stand by Engineering requirements that private drives cannot be named and if a public or private street design is used instead, this design must meet the design geometric requirements stated in our street design standards. Please let me know if further discussion can be made regarding this project. Thanks! Marc CC: Ron Gonzales Steve O t - Re: Harmony edge 2nd ilin ddensity requirements _ m Page 1 From: Marc Virata To: Bob Blanchard, Dave Stringer, Steve Olt Date: Thu, Mar 23, 2000 1:55 PM Subject: Re: Harmony Ridge 2nd Filing density requirements The applicant mentioned this morning that they didn't feel they could change the housing style to be more intense in a given area, (ie, going from townhome to apartment.) They stated that they have some height limitations because of the proximity to the prairie and compatibility with the existing neighborhood (I don't know if this is code based or their own concerns/perceptions.) I know that at the neighborhood meeting Steve had to field a variety of questions on "why is the development so dense?" as well as "how bad will my view be impeded from these 3 story units and will I totally lose my view of Pike's Peak?" I have mentioned some possibilities from an engineering design aspect, using a public/private street outer network combined with private drive stubs, as well as turning some units a certain way to possibly eliminate a private drive, but they maintain they've looked at all options and there's nothing they can do to get their number of units to meet density while using a public/private street design to meet PFA/utility requirements. There are also a couple of lots that have "double frontage" to two private drives, when they only need one. There are certainly some things in my mind that they could do to get more area without reducing the number fo lots, I just don't know myself if this is merely a band -aid or if it will solve the issue. I can only document the developer's belief that it won't work and can't verify it without spending time trying to design the site myself. As the responsibility for the developer saying "this can't be done" is really on their shoulders, I would be interested in seeing the proof to that. What today's meeting became was everyone seeing reduction in density as the quick and easy answer. Whether or not it really is the only answer as the developer maintains, is a question I can't answer. >>> Dave Stringer 03/23 12:28 PM >>> Marc, My thoughts. These comments are not meant to be taken as a reflection on you. I understand that you are only carrying forth the desires of those in attendance at the meeting today. I am assuming that the developer comments as well as that of the utilities is based upon what is currently being proposed. Has the applicant looked at different building sizes, styles and lot configurations or are they stuck in the - "this is what we want' scenario , without looking at other options? It appears to me (with just my quick take on the situation) that using a right side brain approach hasn't been taken seriously. It's easier for everyone to say it won't work instead of looking at how can we make it work. This is a planning issue. But, there are Engineering ramifications as well. Perhaps we should meet with . Planning and brainstorm so solutions that may be acceptable for all parties concerned. Dave >>> Marc Virata 03/23 10:35 AM >>> A utility coordination meeting was held this morning for the Harmony Ridge 2nd Filing. The feeling expressed by the utilities present (gas, cable, water & sewer) was that the project does not meet their respective requirements because of the private drives (not having the typical utility easement widths a public street may have), the close proximity of the units to these private drives, and the amount of open space between the units to install services. In addition, PFA is not in favor of the layout from a public safety standpoint, as this project will have 120+ single family attached units all off of private drives. Because private drives cannot be named, PFA feels as a safety issue that the development would be better served by a public or private street internal development that will allow these roadways to be named. Steve Olt - Re: Harmony Ridge 2nd Filing density requirements Page 2 The developer has asserted that they cannot use a public/private street internal network and meet their density requirement at the same time because of the additional road/easement width required for a public/private streets. Also, to design the roadways to public/private street standards, the horizontal alignments needed to meet engineering requirements would further hamper on their ability to meet their density. The utilities and PFA are in favor of a reduction in density of this development and were encouraged by the fact that the developer wishes the reduction in density as well. I don't fully know the ramifications of reducing their density, it was my understanding that this issue was raised before Growth Managment Lead Team and a reduction in density was denied. In light of the utilities and PFA having concerns with the present proposal and the developer being in favor of reducing the density and using a public/private street design, I've been asked to raise this issue with the Planning Department. As a side note, apparently, it was explained to me that if they were to reduce their density, they would have to go under the Land Use Code, and Natural Resources would require under the LUC that a 400' buffer is created, rendering around 90% of the project undevelopable. Another issue that was raised this morning is that the developer was. told that they did not provide enough landscaping with the project, however the utilities were concerned with some of the landscaping already proposed and how trees appear to be situated over locations where utility lines are needed. The developer does not think they can meet their landscaping requirements for their density without conflicting with the utilities. I am just raising the concerns expressed by the utilities and PFA this morning and am neutral on this issue, though I would want to stand by Engineering requirements that private drives cannot be named and if a public or private street design is used instead, this design must meet the design geometric requirements stated in our street design standards. Please let me know if further discussion can be made regarding this project. Thanks! Marc CC: Ron Gonzales Steve Olt Re: Harmony Ridge _ Page 1 From: Bob Blanchard To: "kmwilson@poudre-fire.org"@FC1.GWIA Date: Wed, Mar 29, 2000 12:39 PM Subject: Re: Harmony Ridge Kevin: Thanks for the comments. I have had little to do with this and will need to get back to you after Steve gets back and I have a chance to review it. Bob Blanchard Current Planning Director City of Fort Collins, Colorado (970)221-6750, FAX: (970)416-2020 EMail: bblanchard@ci.fort-collins.co.us >>> "Kevin Wilson" <kmwilson@poudre-fire.org> 3/29/00 8:27:19 AM >>> Hello Bob: I trust that this email finds everything okay in your world. I have some concerns with this project and wanted to touch base with you. We both have worked on similar issues in the past, but this project provides specific examples of my concerns about the use of private drives w/o names (97FCLUC3.6.2 (L)(5)). This project is pushing the envelope of what is functional for us. The use of private drives with the inability to provide street names does not comply with the fire code (901.4.4, Premise Identification). It appears that the existing "apartment design layout', which only marginally works for us is being used in this high density single family project. I am not sure, but perhaps the design densities used at Harmony Ridge has pushed named streets out and brought in unnamed private drives. I have instructed Ron Gonzales to make comment that this design will not work for us and to pursue modification. I also am looking for your assistance in resolving this issue. If I have missed something regarding my interpretation of this project or we need to have more discussion on this, feel free to email or call at anytime. Kevin CC: Marc Virata; Ron Gonzales; Steve Olt