Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHAMLET CONDOMINIUMS AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY - 54-87AE - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS(�LLEQ• LI1)CL1=- (IQu T�-=cTs QC. 748 WHALERS WAY • BLDG E, SUITE 200 • FORT COLLINS Y COLORADO 80525 • (970) 223-1820 July 5, 1995 Ted Shepard Community Planning and Environmental Services 281 N. College Avenue P.O. Box 581 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE- Staff Comments, Preliminary Submittal, Hamlet at Miramont Dear Ted: We have reviewed the staff comments and have addressed the questions as follows: 1. Relocate easterly access drive to east property line to provide a common drive for adjacent property: We have shown this drive on the revised plan the way in which I believe you would like to see it. We do have several concerns: 1) Relocating this requires the adjacent property Owner to agree to this and provide an easement on his property. Is he willing to do this? Since this provides no benefit to our project, who is responsible for getting the Owner to agree to it? 2) The existing sewer and water stub outs will have to be abandoned and taken back to the mainlines. New stubouts will be required resulting in additional cost to the project. In addition, it requires tearing up the street paving in 2 locations, verses none as previously designed. This additional cost should also be shared by the adjacent property Owner, or an easement granted to allow us to not put these services under paving. 3) We have a concern with the adjacent properties headlights shining onto our buildings. We will buffer this area with a fence and landscaping, but would like to request that the access of the adjacent property to this new drive be located at the south end of the new drive. 4) We feel that the Owner of the adjacent property should share in the cost of this request since they are the ones benefitting from this. If the City cannot promise this, then we feel we should be allowed the access as originally submitted. 2. Detached sidewalk at boardwalk: This was what is shown on the plans; however, we have rendered it so it will be more noticeable. 3. Plant Note #2: This will be provided. 4. Detention Area: This will be completed as requested. RBD is working on this issue. 5. Filing Information: This will be corrected. E • 6. Postal Box Locations: This will be worked out and provided for final submittal. 7,8 & 9. Pedestrian Walks: A common 2' drainage pan and 4' walk has now been shown on the revised submittal plan. 10,11 & 12. Landscaping: See revised plan submittal. 13. 38' wide streets were provided to allow for parallel parking, and maintain a 20' fire access lane. The number of spaces this results in is shown on the revised site plan Submittal. 14. Entry Wall: Corrected, see revised submittal. 15. Density Chart: See revised sheet. 16. Fiberglass Shingles: It is our intent on using the high profile shingles. This will be corrected on the final submittal. 17. Brick Veneer: We do not feel that brick veneer is a better quality material than synthetic stucco. Several homes are finished in stucco. This also was not a concern with the neighborhood. 18. Misc. information: Will comply. I believe this addresses all of your concerns; however, we are still concerned about item one above and would like some resolution quickly. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALLERsLINGLE ARCHITECTS P.C. Michael L. (Mick) Aller MLA/mr