Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLINDIMER SUBDIVISION FINAL - 26 93A - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (3)N,, As always.please' call if there are any questions or.concerns about these"comments or, to set up a meeting to discuss these comments in detail Sincere y; u t Ted Shepard P Senior Planner .r, xc: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer. 16. It is suggested that the plat sheet be accompanied by a landscape plan. The landscape plan should indicate the six foot high solid fence along the southerly property line, with no gates. (Fence may be bermed up slightly.) Both the plat and the landscape plan should contain a note describing the purpose of the fence and that the fence must be maintained in good repair and cannot be removed as long as the adjacent land use remains a livestock area. (It is understood by the Planning Department that the fence will be constructed at the beginning of the construction sequence to minimize disturbance on the livestock.) 17. Although it is specified in the Zoning Code, the landscape plan should contain a note that sideyard fencing cannot exceed 48 inches in height between the front property line and the front building line. 18. The landscape plan should also indicate what trees have been selected to be planted in the rear yards of the lots adjacent to the riding arena. 19. Similarly, the landscape plan should indicate that there will be one, two-inch caliper street tree per lot, per frontage. Lots 6, 10, and it will require two trees. The selected species will be reviewed by the City Forester. 20. Since the request is a straight subdivision and not a P.U.D., the placement of structures on the lot are strictly regulated by the 60 foot lot width requirement, as measured from the front building line. This may impact Lots 1,2,3,5,6,8,9, and 12. Please see attached sheet. If this requirement cannot be met, then the options are to apply for a P.U.D., or apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. 21. The developer is encouraged to consider restricting the rear yard fence heights along the ditch to four feet. The Stormwater Utility has experienced the "out of sight - out of mind" phenomenon where homeowners with six foot high fences adjacent to open space, drainage channels, detention ponds, etc. are psychologically free to toss grass clippings and lawn and garden debris over the fence. This causes long term problems with drainage. If a six foot height is needed, then the top two feet can be of an open, or lattice, design. This concludes Staff comments at this time. In order to remain on schedule for the June 28, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, please note the following deadlines: Plan revisions are due May 9, 1993. P.M.T.Is, 10 prints, colored renderings are due June 21, 1993. r 5. If a subdrain system is required, then it must be designed and shown on the Final Utility Plans. A registered professional engineer must verify to the City Engineering Department if a subdrain system is not needed. 6. At the time of Final, ditch seepage will be required on the Utility Plan cover sheet and on the grading and drainage plan. 7. The plat should indicate all drainage facilities, including the detention ponds located within drainage easements. 8. It is not stated whether or not the pavement design is based on anticipated traffic volumes and the City's criteria. The developer's engineer doing the pavement design needs to contact the City's Pavement Management Engineer to prepare the pavement design at the time of Final. 9. The two cul-de-sacs should be "necked down" so that the entrance is more typical of a standard cul-de-sac and not an "eyebrow". 10. A variance request from the developer's engineer is needed for the design of the "S" curve in the street. Since there is no tangent. between curves, the street design does not meet standards. 11. Driveway access for Lots 10 and 11 must be from the cul-de- sacs. Otherwise, a temporary turn -around would have to be constructed. 12. At the time Final, the plat should indicate the lengths of curves on all property lines, especially adjacent to the right-of-way. 13. U.S. West reminds that the developer is responsible for provision of all trench, street crossings, and ditch crossings for telephone facilities within the project, and that the developer pays up front construction costs for facilities within the development. 14. The Parks and Recreation Department will accept a dedication for the land area needed for a bicycle/pedestrian path on the eastern side of PV & L Canal. Please indicate this on the plat. The dedication language should state "... for bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian purposes." 15. As a single family subdivision, the lots are subject to the requirements of the Solar Orientation Ordinance. Please indicate on the plat, those lots which comply. If this number is under 65% of the total, then the developer must apply, in writing, for a variance from the requirement for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board. Commun..y Planning and Environmental , vices Planning Department City of Fort Collins May 19, 1993 Mr. Mark Linder Mark Linder Real Estate 3500 J.F.K. Parkway, #221 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mark: Staff has reviewed the request for Lindimer Subdivision, Preliminary, and offers the following comments: 1. There is presently an unresolved issue with the outfall for stormwater drainage. Representatives of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal will need to approve this project prior to approval by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility. Both the City and the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal are concerned about the impact on the ditch. The drainage report should discuss any hazards to the irrigation ditch envisioned as a result of construction activities or as a result of permanent development of the site. The report should also discuss any impacts on water quality. 2. Although this submittal is only in the Preliminary stage, the issue of directing storm flows into the ditch should be resolved, in concept, prior to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of June 28, 1993. The developer could be placed in an awkward position if Preliminary approval is granted and the stormwater not be allowed to enter the ditch. 'The result could be considerable re -design of the project at the developer's expense. The ditch company representative should contact the Stormwater Utility, prior to June 28, 1993, regarding the drainage issue. 3. The Stormwater Utility needs more information on the relationship between fencing and the proposal to locate stormwater detention ponds on portions of individual lots. Fencing must be carefully designed and restricted so as to not interfere with the function of the detention pond. 4. The Soils Report does not state when the borings were taken and concludes that no groundwater was encountered onsite. The Report, however, does not address the effect on groundwater during irrigation season when the ditch is running. The Soils Report should verify the time of year the borings were taken and address the impact on groundwater during irrigation season. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750