HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRIDGEFIELD P.U.D. - PRELIMINARY - 45-94 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFFIYVY"�lYJ-�'Y InV 11 VO
landscaping the areas between garages so in a fashion that makes parking there
unattractive, and c) installing "no parking" signs along the garages side of the street.
4. nd or t tUfn ou s r s- Because these
street are short, only about 100', we feel that a) a hammerhead turn around, b) an
easement permitting egress via garage driveways, c) or both of these alternatives
combined provide a good solution for these two limited situations.
5. Et3f Kbg court - We have one small group of houses fronting onto a small traffic
court. If you wish,we can reconfigure this to provide a second point of egress and
commensurately reduce the amount of landscaping.
6. Had - On the south portion of plan, we indicate that
our roadway overlaps on the ditch easement. This is the case and will require ditch
company authorization which we believe we can obtain.
7. Perimeter Areet-
A. We have proposed a one-way street with 16' of asphalt, 4' of pedestrian -
vehicle hard surface, 7' of parking and "walkable landscaping". Walkable landscaping
means that the landscaping at the curb will be flagstone and / or grass and / or other
permitting someone to get out of their car easily and get to the front walk. The one-way
street consideration which was suggested at our previous Planning - Engineering -
Transportation meeting is still, I believe, an excellent suggestion. It improves the fire,
safety and ease of parking and there are only two or three point, I believe, where the
convenience of "going the wrong way on a one-way street" is likely to occur. I believe
this can be handled by a) very strict covenant provisions and b) signage. On balance,
I think the benefits of the one-way street outweigh the detriments. This is the
alternative we prefer.
B. An alternative perimeter street would be same as above but 4' of parking at
the front of houses.
C. An alternative would be same as above except 4' of parking at front of
houses plus 20' of asphalt.
Steve, I wanted to give you this feedback before P & Z work session. Again, I would
encourage you to reconsider your need to recommend denial of this project. I would
prefer that you recommend approval conditional upon resolutions in these areas and
with the benefit, of course, of P & Z input. Thanks.
dk
cc: Bob Blanchard
Mike Herzig
LAGUNITAS COMPANY
3307 S. College Ave. Suite 200. fort Collins, CO 80525
303 226 5000 - FAX 226 5125
TO: Steve Olt, City Planner
FROM: Jon Prouty
DATE: November 10, 1994
RE: Bridgefield
Following up my meeting with you and Mike Herzig , and then our further conversation:
I want to be and will be responsive to your concerns and will work to resolve all issues.
I am under some considerable time and economic constraint as a) I have already
delayed preliminary P & Z one time, b) the owner of the property is not inclined to give
me a second extension, and c) I need to get P & Z's views on this project so I know
whether to proceed or drop it.
In response to your and Mike's particular concerns:
1. 7' illy de Barking - many municipalities find that 7' wide is adequate for parking. My
locally gathered research data shows this to be the case. I understand you will be
gathering your own data about this.
2. Parking for Prospect fronting houses - there are four houses immediately to the
west of entrance which front on Prospect. There are three houses immediately to the
east of entrance which front on Prospect. This is desirable for streetscape and
aesthetic reasons so the view from Prospect is not all garages. Convenient, self -
enforcing parking as close as possible to the front doors of these units will be
provided: with four two -car parking bays located at both ends of these two rows of
houses, as close to the front doors as possible. Theses parking places were
eliminated along the main street into the project as a result of a suggestion which was
made at our prior Planning - Engineering - Transportation meeting. I think we should
make an exception in this case for these units as convenient parking for these units is
a paramount concern.
3. Three short street sections with house frontages opposite sided of houses or
garages - It is possible to redesign these streets so this condition does not exist,
however, we do not believe It is desirable from the standpoint of planning,
marketability or aesthetics. If we solve this problem by putting garages opposite
garages on a public street, this is extremely ugly. Also, it is desirable to have many
internal neighborhoods of four - six houses where the houses front each other and
give a good neighborhood feel.
Regarding the likelihood of parking along the garages side of these streets, I suggest
that this be minimized by a) providing sufficient parking in front of all housing units, b)
5307 South College Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80525