Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOBBLESTONE CORNERS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 55-87E - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS t Hie-TEtk, Comm Planning and Environmentae rvices Planning epartment City of Fort Collins June 23, 1993 Mr. Merle Haworth Robb, Brenner and Brelig Architects 125 South Howes, Suite 880 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Merle.: Staff has prepared the comments from interdepartmental review for Cobblestone Corners Preliminary P.U.D. , which are summarized as follows: 1. Zero lot line development will require the electric meter to be on the front of each unit. "Gang meters" may be allowed on the side but an easement would have to be granted to the City of Fort Collins Light and Power Department for the secondary service line. 2 . In Pebble Court, Light and Power will install underground electric facilities behind the sidewalk in the public right-of-way. The Public Service Company will then install its system in the eight foot wide utility easement. The location of street trees must comply with the separation and clearance requirements of Light and Power in order to maintain minimum distances from the underground utilities. 3 . The Public Service Company will require a 10-foot-wide utility easement to extend a gas main south from Richmond Drive to the front lot line of Pebble Court. If other utilities will be using this easement, then the width must be increased to a minimum of 15 feet. 4 . Public Service will require a minimum of an eight-foot-wide utility easement the entire length of Pebble Court on both sides of the street, including the two cul-de-sacs, and access to Wabash Street. 5. If individual services and meters are required to serve each townhome, then meters must be located on the front of each dwelling unit. Another option, if permitted by the City's Uniform Building Code, would be to cluster the meters on a side wall of each duplex or four-plex structure so the meters do not face the street. 6. Public Service requires that street trees be kept a minimum of four feet of horizontal distance from underground gas lines. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 110 Haworth/Robb,Brenner& Brelig June 23, 1993 Page 2 7 . It is highly recommended that, at the appropriate time, a utility coordination meeting be held so that proper easements are sized and located to accommodate all utilities. 8. Telephone facilities generally occupy rear lot utility easements, which must be located on terrain which permits trenching operations. 9 . The developer is responsible for provision of all trench, street crossings and ditch crossings for telephone facilities within the project, and the developer pays up front construction costs for facilities within the development. The developer provides a conduit from the main telephone cable to each four-plex building. Specifications for the conduit can be obtained from the U.S. West Engineer. 10. The Fire Marshal of the Poudre Fire Authority will require that Pebble Court be a width of 36 feet as measured from flowline to flowline. 11. The temporary access connection to Richmond Drive is permissible provided it is 20 feet in width, has 20-foot inside and 40-foot outside turning radii, and is constructed to support a 63, 000-pound fire truck. The surface must be "all weather" with side delineations. Bollards or gates may used on the ends with signs stating "No Parking - Fire Lane". 12. The Parks and Recreation Department is working with the City Council on a proposal to raise the Parkland Development Fee. The developer is cautioned that the Parkland Development Fee could increase by the time these units, if approved, are eligible for building permits. 13 . Comments from the Stormwater Utility Department are being made under separate cover directly to the consulting engineer. 14. Based on input from the two neighborhood meetings, the developer is encouraged to explore ways to pull the cul-de-sac bulbs away from the north property line. Perhaps this could be done "bending" or curving each bulb more to the east so that there is more setback on the north. Or, perhaps, the cul-de-sacs could be dropped a little further south. As long as Poudre Fire Authority has the ability to turn-around and the exterior portions of each unit remain within 150 feet of a parked fire truck, the units will comply with the Fire Code. A possible solution would be to provide legal access for units (Al & A2) and (B11 & B12) via access easements, if necessary, rather than a dedicated public street. These access easements could be 411 Haworth/Robb,Brenner & Brelig June 23, 1993 Page 3 dedicated on the plat and maintained by the H.O.A. Access easements, in the form of long driveways, may provide the flexibility to create more buffering and would help keep street lights away from the north property line. 15. As you are aware, fencing was a major issue at the second neighborhood meeting. Fencing must act in concert with landscaping and berming to create visual and acoustical buffering. The neighborhood group has also asked that fencing be used to discourage bicycle or pedestrian access onto Richmond Drive. Staff sees three particular areas where fencing must perform different functions and, consequently, needs three different design specifications. A. North Property Line Fencing on the north must accommodate both the indoor and outdoor living areas of the two residences and also the pasture and outbuilding areas of each adjacent lot. In pasture areas, the fence must be either set back from the existing wire fence or constructed so that it can withstand potential livestock abuse. Fencing adjacent to living areas must provide visual and acoustical screening. The Preliminary P.U.D. should provide a detail on how fencing on the north will be accomplished, and should note that this fencing is to be maintained by the H.O.A. B. Interior Lots It appears that the A and B units will have an opportunity to construct individual yard, sideyard, or patio fencing. This fencing must be specified on the P.U.D. A good example of individual yard fencing restrictions is in The Landings P.U.D. where fencing must conform to building siding and is open at the bottom. The P.U.D. should specify that this fencing is to be maintained by individual lot owners. C. "A" Units As mentioned at the neighborhood meetings, the developer desires to provide perimeter fencing behind the "A" units to buffer the future residential filings in Mountain Ridge Farm. This type of fencing should be specified on the P.U.D. so that it is uniform. Also, will this fence be constructed by the developer or by individual lot owners and who will be responsible for maintenance? 16. Staff is concerned about the tight setbacks along the north property line and the need to install berms. For buildings "Al" and "Bli", there appears to be inadequate area for providing berms. Similarly, the two cul-de-sacs seem to crowd the north property line, as mentioned in a preceding comment. By pulling these • Haworth/Robb,Brenner & Brelig June 23, 1993 Page 4 elements further away from the north property line, berms can become, more effective in helping to screen the project from the adjacent residences. If retaining walls are needed to gain berm height, please indicate the approximate locations. The location of the berms should not conflict with storm drainage plans. 17. The Preliminary P.U.D. landscaping concept needs to be enhanced to indicate a more intense buffer along the north property line. In particular, the areas adjacent to neighboring living areas should present, at maturity, a solid screen of plant material. 18 . At the time of Final P.U.D. , the landscape plan should indicate the future treatment of the emergency fire access easement in the event that the easement is abandoned. Since the fire access easement is considered "temporary", a "permanent" landscaping and fencing treatment should be considered now so that the H.O.A. and the neighboring property owners will know what to expect over the long term. 19. The Preliminary P.U.D should include architectural elevations that indicate the basic architectural intent in terms of height, exterior materials, roof materials, and roof pitch for all three building types. 20. A concern of the neighborhood is the amount and location of street lighting. The applicant should write a letter to the Light and Power Department expressing the neighborhood's concern. A copy of this letter should be forwarded to the Planning Department so the project planner can follow up with the appropriate representatives at the Light and Power Department. The primary area of concern is public street lighting within the two cul-de- sacs. 21. Adjacent outbuildings should be shown on the P.U.D. Site Plan. 22 . Because of the sensitive neighborhood compatibility issues, the Preliminary P.U.D. would benefit from providing as much design detail as possible. For instance, it would be helpful to provide a cross-section or profile of the relationship between the two existing residences to the north and the proposed P.U.D. While additional detail may seem unusual for a Preliminary submittal; the P.U.D. must pass the test of neighborhood compatibility at the Preliminary stage, not at Final. 23 . Staff is concerned about the P.U.D. accounting for on-street parking. In general, the Planning Department does not allow a residential project to take credit for on-street parking. The P.U.D. must stand on its own and provide for its own parking needs since public, on-street parking is not guaranteed. Consequently, y Haworth/Robb,Brenner & Brelig June 23, 1993 Page 5 please delete the two references concerning available parking on Pebble and Wabash (Planning Objectives) and curbside parking (Land Use Data) . 24. The P.U.D. will not need an Attorney Certification. This is only required on plat documents. The Owner Certification, however, will need a Notarial Block to verify the owner's signature. (Examples are available. ) 25. The vicinity map should indicate Richmond Drive. 26. The term "retention pond" should be changed to "detention pond" since storage will only be temporary. 27. Finally, a minor comment should be made regarding the term "patio home" . At a recent Planning and Zoning Board meeting, Staff was asked to define a patio home. It is our opinion that a patio home is a small lot (could be zero lot line) , single family, detached home. It is not a traditional single family home based on the minimum lot size (6,000 square feet) , nor is it townhome (attached housing with common open space) . It appears that the A and B units fit the patio home definition, with the common wall being considered the zero lot line, and with individual lot areas. . The four-plex structures, however, without individual lots, seem to meet the definition of a townhome. Staff's intention is to not confuse the P & Z Board. It is suggested that Cobblestone Corner be referred to as a patio home/townhome project. This concludes Staff comments at this time. Please note the following deadlines to stay on schedule for the July 26, 1993 Planning and Zoning Board meeting: Plan revisions are due July 7, 1993. P.M.T. Is, 10 prints, colored renderings are due July 19, 1993. As always, please feel free to call our office to discuss these comments or to set up an appointment to discuss these issues in depth. Sincceere�ly, ..-44,4 f= . Ted Shepard Senior Planner xc: Sherry Albertson-Clark, Chief Planner Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer