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