HomeMy WebLinkAboutWOODLAND STATION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 18-94B - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSexisting Intergovernmental Agreement, re -adopted in 1991.
Enclosed please find a copy of page 12 of the I.G.A. which
contains two paragraphs regarding the relationship between
developing urban areas and existing rural properties.
These two paragraphs indicate that a closer look needs to
taken to the design treatment along the eastern edge of the
P.U.D. Presently, it appears that the P.U.D. does not meet
the intent of transitioning as stated in the I.G.A. It is
recommended that the area of Lots 14 through 26 be re-examined
for providing buffering and transition elements. If such
treatment renders the P.U.D. to fall below 3.00 dwelling units
per acre, then additional units could be made up by providing
a multi -family element elsewhere on the property. Or, the
applicant may request a variance from the minimum density
requirement based on buffering requirements. It is suggested
that the areas of Lots 37, 64 through 68 be investigated for
possible increases in density.
18. Has any consideration been given to buffering along rear of
Lots 27 through 37? Will this area feature a common perimeter
fence or landscape treatment? Trees that are removed for
streets and utilities could be transplanted to this area to
establish a "soft" edge for the existing County residents. It
will be recalled from the neighborhood meeting that there are
compatibility issues between the City's urban density
requirements and the existing County residential properties.
19. The P.U.D. should include an expanded note on the timing of
extending Nite Court south to serve the project.
This concludes Staff comments at this time. Please note the
following deadlines for the October 24, 1994 Planning and Zoning
Board hearing:
Plan revisions are due Wednesday, October 5, 1994.
P.M.T:'s, renderings, 10 prints are due October 17, 1994.
As always, please feel free to call our office to discuss these
comments or to set up a meeting to discuss the issues in depth.
Sincerely:
Ted Shepard
Senior Planner
xc: Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner
Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer
Encl.
11. Prior to the utility coordination meeting, the City Forester
should be contacted to set up a time for a site inspection.
The extensive trees should be evaluated. Tree protection
specifications should be added to the P.U.D. to protect
against overlot grading and construction.
12. Comments from Water and Wastewater Utility will be forthcoming
under separate cover. In brief, there may be a problem with
providing sewer services in that a lift station may required.
Lift stations, in general, are not typically found in
residential projects. The planning and engineering
consultants should coordinate with Water and Wastewater
regarding this sewer issue.
13. Detailed comments from Stormwater Utility will also be
forthcoming under separate cover. In brief, there may be
significant issues with stormwater runoff being routed to the
natural outfall point. Offsite drainage easements may need to
be obtained from intervening property owners. Runoff onto or
through intervening property owners must be of the same rate,
manner, quality, and quantity as historic runoff. Also, there
is a low point in the vicinity of the intersection of
Melbourne Place and Canberra Circle that may need significant
re -grading in order to have positive drainage. Also, the use
of rear lot drainage channels may be an issue. Again, the
planning and engineering consultants should coordinate with
the City's Stormwater Utility to resolve these issues.
14. Lots 18 and 19 appear to require massive amounts of fill
material in order to develop. It also appears that filling
this area to gain buildable lots may impact the Thomas
property. Please refer to All Development Criteria A-2.3 of
the L.D.G.S. regarding minimum disturbance to topography. It
may be necessary to delete these lots to satisfy the
criterion.
15. The P.U.D. indicates that the existing trees, to the best
practical extent, are to be preserved within easements located
in the rear yards of the affected lots, and along County Road
#9. It is recommended that these easements be upgraded to
"Open Space Tracts" and dedicated to the common area under
jurisdiction of the homeowner's association. Being part of a
common area rather than part of individually platted lots will
offer better long term protection for the trees.
16. The portion of the Hothan Street cul-de-sac that encroaches
onto the Shields M.R.D. will require an offsite access
easement .to be granted by the property owner. Such an
easement will be required at the time of Final P.U.D.
17. Staff is concerned about the transition between urban
densities and existing rural residential properties. It is
recognized that there may a conflict between recently adopted
growth management policies by the City Council and the
easements and right-of-way dedication must be extended across
the out parcel (existing home) south of Lot One. Several
trees may need to be removed to facilitate installation of
underground electric in the standard location between sidewalk
and curb along County Road #9. It is suggested that a utility
coordination meeting be held with the utility providers and
the City Forester to determine location and impact of placing
underground utilities.
3. The locations of streetlights along County Road #9 have been
determined as indicated on the enclosed plan. Please place
street trees in accordance with Light and Power
specifications.
4. Public Service Company has the same problem as Light and
Power. Traditional placement may be hindered by the existing
trees. PSCo needs to extend a four inch diameter gas line
along the western edge of this P.U.D. in an area that is as
close to the back of sidewalk along County Road #9 as
possible. This issue should be discussed at the utility
coordination meeting.
5. U.S. West will require a 15" x 30' easement for three large
telephone equipment cabinets in the general vicinity of the
southwest corner of Lot 68.
6. Utility Plans should include existing telephone cables along
the east side of South County #9. Any relocation of existing
telephone facilities required by these plans will be paid for
by the developer.
7. Columbine Cable Vision would like to work with the developer
on installing cable main lines in a joint trench with U.S.
West phone lines.
8. What will be the ownership status of the 30 foot wide easement
that is the Thomas driveway? The plat indicates a 30 foot
wide gap between the southern property line of Woodland
Station and the north property line of the Preston -Kelley
Subdivision. Is this driveway to be owned in fee simple
ownership .by Thomas? Or, will the driveway remain an
easement? If retained as an easement, who is the underlying
owner?
9. Detailed comments from Engineering will be forthcoming under
separate cover. In brief, County Road #9 needs to be designed
with cross -sections and centerline and flowline profiles at
final. Also, off -site information is needed to how proposed
improvements tie into existing Nite Court.
10. The City of Fort Collins Police Department is concerned about
the use of "Hothan" as a street name. This name is too
similar sounding to "Hawthorn," an existing street in Fort
Collins. It is suggested that another name be selected.
Commu y Planning and Environmental _rvices
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
September 14, 1994
Mr. Eldon Ward
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Eldon:
Staff has reviewed the request for Preliminary P.U.D. for Woodland
Station. The primary comment pertains to open space credit on
Point Chart H. Other comments follow.
1. A key issue in processing a residential Preliminary P.U.D. on
this parcel is the performance on the Residential Uses Point
Chart (H) of the L.D.G.S. As you are aware, the City Council
recently passed Ordinance 114-1994 on August 2, 1994, known as
the "Interim Phasing Criteria" for residential development.
This new ordinance requires residential developments to earn
a minimum of 60 points on Point Chart H. As submitted, the
P.U.D. attempts to gain these points by donation of a parcel
of land to the City consisting of approximately 12 acres,
located east of the Poudre Ridge.
The Department of Natural Resources has inspected the property
and has evaluated the merits of this donation. The proposed
donation is a parcel that is not identified as a sensitive
natural area.
Based on a site inspection and evaluation by the Department of
Natural Resources of the 12 acre parcel, the property does not
meet City's criteria of meeting minimum requirements. Staff,
therefore, cannot accept the granting of 30 points on
criterion"n" of Point Chart H. This lowers the point score
from 60 to 30, which is below the minimum threshold.
It is recommended that unless suitable open space can be found
that meets the criteria of the Department of Natural Resources
or Parks and Recreation Department, the P.U.D. be continued
indefinitely and not processed for the October 24, 1994
Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Both Planning and Natural
Resources staff are willing to meet to discuss further
options.
2. Light and Power remains concerned about serving the site from
easements and right-of-way along County Road #9. At minimum,
281 North Colle-e Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750