HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAURIE SUBDIVISION PUD - PRELIMINARY - 44-89C - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSRICHMOND ASSOCIATES
1 rGhlteGtS/Planners 420 WEST OAK STREET Fr. COLLINS, CO 80521
(303) 224-3140
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
T O : Atg P.T`� KJ ' . &'�
eoM- BOLL L ,-,�&nA10( DI
Transmitted herewith are:
DATE: 010A0
PROJECT
Project Drawings: U)'7) p4 fli D
# copies 5 lltTs s �tg'Z'- s !op' ( -:I 1 Z
Report��P�N51�
# copies ) OBI GlN�D rT
F-1 Action:
For information
For review & comment
For review & return
Other: ��� /� (,A�.� ���O, IJl',S I.�1� �901—
I
0 •
FOUNDATION I Counsulting
ENGINEERING Engineers
Variance Request
August 8, 1990
Chairman
Fort Collins Planning Commission
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Street Width Variance for Laurie Subdivision P.U.D.
Gentlemen:
We request on behalf of the owner, Mr. William M. Musslewhite, DVM of
Laurie Subdivision P.U.D.,a variance from the normal 54 feet right of way
and 36 feet wide paving to a 46 feet right of way and 28 feet wide
paving. This narrower street width will be in the residential portion of
the subdivision. This narrower street is requested to diminish the impact
of the right of way on the existing terrain and vegetation in that
subdivison. The subdivsion is a very low density subdivision and will not
require the normal parking that is available on two sides of the 36 feet
right of way street.
We appreciate your consideration on this matter.
Respec ly
Kev3 W. terson, P.E.
FOUNDATIO ENGINEERING, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LTD.
KWP/kmp
cc: Mr. Don Richmond
Richmond & Associates
320 North Cleveland Avenue 0 Loveland, Colorado 80537 0 (303) 663-0138
0
vty tt.srrrAc.
RICHMOND ASSOCIATES
�'``� Architects/Planners
RICHI IOA"D ASSOCIATES
Ar�bit�'C#si/I'laltners 420 WEST OAK STREET FT. COLLINS, CO 80521
(303) 224-3140
August 6, 1990
Fort Collins Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Sherry:
RE: Your July 19, 1990 Letter Reviewing Laurie Subdivision
Preliminary PUD Plan
The following is an item by item response to your review of the
preliminary PUD plan. We hope these comments and other
enclosures describing changes to the preliminary plan adequately
address your comments.
1. Light and Power has been contacted and a meeting is scheduled
with Kevin Westhuis to discuss and coordinate the electric
utilities on the site.
2. The common drive area to Lot 5 will be labeled as an access
and utility easement.
3. A 15' utility easement has been added to the preliminary plat
and will be part of the final plat.
4. A note has been placed on the site plan that states that
homes on lots 3-6 will be required to have residential fire
sprinkler systems.
5. The fire hydrant has been deleted from the plans.
6. The proposed cul-de-sac will conform to city standards and
have the drive over curb and gutter as required.
7. The preliminary plan sheet 1 of 1 and sheet 1 of 5 contained
the overall utility plan along with the other information
requested in your item 7. This will be made clear by
relabeling the sheet 1 as also overall utility plan. The
design of the complete water system was contained in Phase 1
Design. We have made a decision at this point that if the
Phase 2 subdivision is approved, there is no need for the
sewer design as proposed as in Phase 1 across Shields and
this design would be abandoned in lieu of a proposal of sewer
to Hepplewhite Court. The design of the proposed water line
from Phase 1 would remain intact.
8. A site meeting with the City Forester, Tim Buchanan, was
held. Attending the site meeting was Dr. Musslewhite, Mark
Linder, Linder Real Estate, Heddy Bixby, Landscape Architect,
and myself. A detailed discussion was held regarding several
issues that you have expressed further in your letter that
may be adddressed to some extent in this paragraph. The main
emphases of the meeting with Tim Buchanan was to determine
how best to preserve the existing character of the wooded
hillside along with diminishing the impact of the proposed
embankment across the ravine. In general, it was agreed that
a procedure will be adopted similar to the one used at The
orchard at Clarendon Hills requiring that prior to issuance
of a building permit, the City Forester will conduct an
evaluation of the existing trees on the building lots. Three
lots in the subdivision may involve minor loss of trees. The
evaluation by the City Forester will determine conditions and
recommend to preserve or replant recommended foliage. We
will adopt measures to insure that construction will not
damage trees that are proposed to remain on the site. The
covenance of the subdivision will also require specific
measures that will initiate additional planting of trees on
the site. Specific landscape measures that address other
issues in your letter will be discussed in the appropriate
paragraph.
9. We are making corrections to the title of this subdivision
to call this subdivision Laurie Subdivision, Second
Filing, A P.U.D.
10. In regard to clarification of names, we would like to propose
at this point that the name of the street be Wooded Creek
Court in lieu of the Laurie Ann Court. The new proposed
name, we believe, more appropriately describes the character
of the subdivision. In that regard our realtor, Mark Linder,
has recommended that the covenance be more restrictive in
terms of size and value of structures proposed on the
subdivision. The covenance will require that any multi -level
structure contain a minimum of 2500 square feet and any
single level ranch style structure contain a minimum 2200
square feet.
11. The information regarding maximum height and zoning will be
added to the site plan. In regard to maximum height, we have
proposed that the maximum height in general be restricted to
approximately 34 feet. We have also designated on the
building envelopes a maximum elevation building height.
This maximum elevation height is intended to restrict the
height above the terrain primarily on lots 3 and 4.
12. The following explanation is intended to combine a number of
current disciplines and consultants in a discussion of the
issues that you address regarding street grades,
environmental impact mitigation of various environmental
issues that are included.
The location of the proposed street is, we believe, the best
location to effect the fewest number of trees given that
we have to cross the ravine to have access to the western
portion of the site. We have proposed that the embankment
be completely landscaped and covered with landscape
materials. In addition, the slopes will temporarily be
maintained using landscape fabric until full growth is
achieved. There are separate enclosures from our landscape
architect, Heddy Bixby that will address the issue of slope
erosion.
We are proposing that a 3 to 1 slope be maintained on the
slope versus the 4 to 1 requested by storm water drainage to
mitigate the loss of existing trees on the site. The present
embankment on Hepplewhite Court is a 3 to 1 or less slope
and is adequately vegitated to maintain a pleasant landscaped
appearance. We reviewed the condition of the Hepplehhite
slope with City Forester, Tim Buchanan and we believe this
slope reflects the slope on the natural terrain on the site.
In regard to your concern of crossing the swale and an
embankment versus a bridge, the following discussion is
given. The proposed crossing of the existing swale involved
a thorough evaluation of various alternatives. The initial
proposal that was presented to the city in January of this
year was an embankment that was substantially more massive
than the proposal that is submitted at the present time. The
initial proposal involved a standard width right -away road
and a 6% street grade that left the cul-de-sac at an
elevation approximately 4 to 6' higher than the proposal that
is presented to date. Our initial proposal also involved the
utilization of a portion of the ravine versus the proposal
that is submitted to date. After it was discovered that a
portion of the site had been designated as an area of
critical concern we conducted evaluations of various types of
crossing to the ravine. An extensive evaluation was
conducted to determine if a bridge could be utilized to cross
the ravine. The intent of the bridge was to diminish the
impact of embankments upon the existing terrain. In
determining this feasibility, an engineer that had designed
bridges in mountainous terrain was asked to review the
possible alternatives. The primary concern that was present
in the proposed crossing was that the road slope across the
ravine would be at 7% in order to meet access requirements on
the west portion of the site. This would require the bridge
structure to be designed at this proposed grade. In
addition, the approach to the bridge required a massive
concrete buttress structure to retain soil at this location.
The concrete and bridge structure would appear, we believe,
very intrusive on the site and not appear to maintain the
natural characteristics or continuity of the existing site.
We prepared a model that will be available at the planning
commission hearing that demonstrates the embankment approach
retains the better character of the existing site. The
location of the embankment is probably the least intrusive of
any possible location on the site. In addition the location
of the cul-de-sac is contained in a place that will not be
highly visible from off site locations. In order to mitigate
the impact of driveways on the site, we have proposed
specific locations for driveway access and have proposed
combining of three driveways into one common easement to
cause the least disruption on the site. We believe the
present design of the crossing is the best possible
alternative to access on the west portion of the site.
13. Landscape Buffer: We have removed the proposed landscape
buffer on the preliminary plan and substituted a different
vehicle to accomplish its intent. We believe The Ridge
subdivision owners are primarily concerned about quality of
improvements that will occur adjacent to them. In that
regard, we will incorporate in the covenance of the
subdivision that each property owner will be required to
plant a number of trees on each building site. The minimum
number of trees will be 1 tree per 1/10 of an acre. In
addition, landscape plans must be furnished to the
architectural control committe prior approval of a design.
We have also decided that the minimum requirements for homes
in the subdivision will be upgraded to a minimum square
footage for a multi -level dwelling of 2500 square feet.
Daylight basements will not be counted in the minimum square
footage requirement.
14. Landscaping is being designed by a licensed landscape
architect. Enclosed is some information about the nature of
shrubs and ground cover proposed for the bank stablization.
15. Enclosed is a variance request prepared by our licensed
professional engineer requesting a 28' wide street. The 28'
wide street was requested to mitigate the impacts of the
embankments of the site as discussed in item 12.
We hope the submission of the enclosed documents address the
issues you have raised in your July 19th letter. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call. We hope the various
consultants involved in assembling this proposal will reasure the
surrounding neighbors and the city that it is our intent to
develop an exemplary PUD project.
Sincerely,
Donald Richmond
Architect/Planner
LF hsTNG
x
70 190 10 Bo
10
\ rum ;zOµI uG
ik
Altj1
I.14
Ir 60
5�10
A / 1 trip s1��-��
ttT N/r3;ry
re'-
,/j i a9 ,vrsow
Lf6ftM:
rVILDING ENJWPE
I I.oT MvNSEF
Ac r_f A,6 Fi
Fri 60i? FIl>,T Ftu0P F4-
Avt FZVF PEAK Elf.
6PR-6L zYz GAVL
I— — HIN 20'ACAF,YARA
gvqo
N RR'T PIyN&
Z
ki
" b
�� Cone I I M 14
\
dLva'
32- .41
Lot M aRYTL PUD
pc 4t
({IsrI4C
I
�A-, o l
1 WIt
11i' ppurT►wq
WOODED
MAM
.OL A
I
yL"ICA
F'p41(. I_AN DMA PL
11LI N
uLIN4
FOR -' e�AUNT)?S
LtI.,rINC P11CM
40 So. I 70
LOT FLIIZIf Run. /ilCHMI[ONU ASSOCIATES
LAU R I E SUBDIVS I O N Arc/uLects/!'[anners+
SECOND FILING, A P.U.D. 42o WIEST OAK STRlaT
I Preliminary Plan/Plat FT. COLLINS, CO 00521 . (303) 224��140
.. The obl•cely o[ the
pl.e I■ to •[!•et lvlY utlil.• the 6.44
sere .Its !or low a•.. it,
ns/d•ntlal dwaop•.ot whll.
.alntalning the environmental gualltl.a of the slti.
■. all portionm of the its will be maintained by Individual
_ owners of the .it..
y.
' - CThen are no businesses or employee. proposed for the secondtiling.
0. the ate d•ago U CM r.sult o! Vyl s9 to dtlg-et• the
1.pact of the access toad •ecroes th. 1[rtptloe ruoolt revin•
that it located oo the Site. The relocation o[ the acc... road
1 h
rjorr,;
Is the .oat [e. bl• local
development o[ the site
an for
wlthout
the road and
d..t ruetlon of
al owa t a
the tr.elloe
.v.a.-�,1
MA-4 tq.IM: 7W �JRAZY M't=IkN%M, WrT)i [.CLL1'r+•-
• hi llalda. TM aeeen road
111 oot
app .r lotru.iv
to the site
U ALK-- g/t.G�Ny-
F (a'
furilding envelope. will
ltom the lower el bill
local loan
be selected
in The Midge
tnat create
.ubdivlslon.
the lesat
y,,,'
disrupt loe to the sit..
a height
r.etr lctloo wl ll•b•
lepo. ed
that
I'bl r" OPT 10711, 3{ ral% 1zW1M WIPINIt,
based on terr alo character let [c. of
both on an off .It. property owner•
tM site that
have an unrestricted
locate
vl.w
aj Pralt`WKLCX fy,5rf �
the Ute,
s.wantlr. rd►IIh1Pyi lZLn 2E,!V1.)IA1c1,
_ -'- __-•-- -,.. ... ...
.......
.. ...m ama ..
. A ... r.. ce
4 c
Site Data 10
* Total Acreage 6.44
* Lot Total 5.76
a Public R.O.W. Total .68
* Density: 9 D.U. E 1.4 DU/acr
* Approximately 3.5 Bedrooms p
a Building Coverage 6.4%
* Driveway Coverage 3.2%
* Public R.O.W• 11.0%
* Off Street Parking 3.5 p,
* Open Area 79.4%
so
Bixby Landscape Architecture
318 East Oak Street
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(303) 493-2126
RE: Laurie Subdivision Preliminary PUD Plan
DATE: August 8,1990
The following notes are in response to staff comments concerning
landscaping the proposed embankment and protection of existing trees
during construction.
The embankment proposed for crossing the ravine shall have a maximum
slope of 3:1. A mixture of grass seed and select wildflowers is proposed
for revegetating the disturbed area. This approach is in keeping with the
existing embankment for Hepplewhite Court to the south. A mixture of
drought tolerant cool season and warm season grasses shall be seeded with
the use of erosion control blankets in the steepest areas. Erosion control
blankets are designed to prevent seed and soil erosion during moderate
rainfall and run-off. They also provide a source of moisture for
establishing vegetation.
Protection of trees during construction of the embankment is also a
concern of the developer. Protection from above and below surface
damage will be necessary during road construction. A set of landscape
specifications shall be written which will include specific instructions for
tree protection. These will be submitted with the final plan.
I
T7mm
LAURIE SUBDIVISION
Preliminary
Mitigation Plan Overlay
„LACK 1OHNSON
�J C:OMPANY
t lcp-*b-� 'Pam T^
1
Legend
u-�
ts`'Fs-tiv-t
Kcv Pv�
\
of-AMA
f"Z
No Text
�i