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