Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN RIDGE PUD PRELIMINARY - 50 92B - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSm CommL-Ay Planning and Environmental _ ervices Planning Department City of Fort Collins November 12, 1992 Linda Ripley Ripley Associates 117 E. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Ms. Ripley, City Staff has reviewed your submittal for Aspen Ridge PUD, and offers the following written comments: 1. Please refer to the attached letter from Susan Peterson for comments from US West Communications. Telephone facilities generally occupy rear lot utility easements, which must be located on terrain which permits trenching operations and which do not conflict with trees, fences, ditches, and other obstacles. 2. The 6' privacy fence inside of the easement along Shields would conflict with construction and maintenance of utilities to be located there. A useable easement inside of the fence should be provided for all utilities using the rear of those lots. 3. In order to provide fire flows and domestic service, the developer will be required to install a 12 inch water line from Taft Hill Road east to the development. A pressure regulating valve is required in Fossil Creek Drive: Please refer to the attached letter from Terry Farrill of the South Fort Collins Sanitation District for additional comments. 4. Close coordination will be required for the crossing of Shields Street at Fossil Creek Drive for placement of Light and Power facilities and Ft. Collins/Loveland water facilities. 5. Planning and Engineering staff will schedule a utility coordination meeting with the various utilities involved in this development. 6. Light and Power questions the feasibility of fitting electric, gas, water, sewer, and an asphalt driveway in the narrow approach to Lot 12. 7. Columbine Cable Vision's main concern is the lack of rear _utility easements for all lots. 281 Worth College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO ,30512-0-580 • 00311 221_67;O 0' 16. I have concerns about the irrigation ditch which runs through the property and which carries water to our area (Scenic Knolls). What are you planning to do with it? The irrigation ditch runs along part of the south border of this property, it does not run through this property. There are no plans to change it at this time. The engineer for the project is here to answer specific questions about the ditch, water rights, shares, and any design changes that may have to be made to.accommodate the ditch. We are aware of the ditch and are willing to work with you to make sure that your concerns are addressed. 17. Where is Scenic Drive located in relationship to this project? Scenic Drive is south of the south property line. The project is not proposing to extend Scenic Drive across Shields Street. 18. Who will be responsible for improvements to Shields Street? Who will widen Shields north and south of this property or will it go from improved to not improved like it is further north? The developers of this property will be responsible for widening the west side of Shields to the full arterial width, including curb, gutter, sidewalks, and a landscaped planting area between the curb and sidewalk. The developer of property with frontage on a street is responsible for the improvements. STAFF: If the property does not develop for a long time, or looks like it may never develop, then the City has'to look at the option of a Capital Improvement Project to fund the improvements as they become necessary. Sometimes, if the development has only a short frontage, the City may collect the money for the improvements and wait until other properties develop before constructing the improvements. 19. I am concerned that the development protect the integrity and usefulness of the irrigation ditch. Please make sure that the plans are sent to the ditch rider for review. We need to make sure that the Homeowner's Associations are protected from law suits if the ditch fails. Project Engineer: The irrigation ditch does contribute to the high water table in the area. We would propose lining the ditch and also designing an underdrain system. Final plans will depend on further geo-technical studies in the area and a cost analysis of the various design solutions. Perimeter drains around each house will also be designed. We have considered the ditch in our designs and will continue working with the interested parties to protect the integrity of the ditch. I' 20. Is on -site detention required? The Stormwater Utility has said that they need to study all of the factors in the area, including how topography, drainage patterns, design, etc. relate to the Fossil Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan, before making any recommendations. 21. What about fire access? Doesn't the subdivision have to have two points of access? Residential fire sprinkler systems are being proposed. This relieves concerns of the Poudre Fire Authority. The PFA will still review the plans and make sure that the subdivision is in compliance with fire codes. 22. Is there adequate water supply and pressure. in the line in Shields? The line will probably have to be upgraded from a 4" to a 1211, this will depend on what the water district (Fort Collins - Loveland Water District) feels is necessary. 23. Will City sewer mains be extended to this property? Yes. 24. Will all utilities be buried underground? Yes. 25. What about construction delays on Shields and construction dirt and dust? The City has a requirement now that a developer submit an erosion control plan, which should address dirt and dust. There is now a criteria in the Land Development Guidance System which addresses erosion control. The owner is looking at beginning construction in the Spring. Construction delays on Shields are going to be a factor when the street is widened, we are not sure what the timing will be on that now. 26. Does the traffic study indicate that you don't have to widen Shields yet? We can tell you the opposite is true. Shields is very busy and is dangerous, especially where it narrows and at the top of the hill where you can't see someone coming. I would hope that more of Shields, more than just adjacent to this development, could be improved. 27. Will there be a path along Fossil Creek or the Burns Tributary? I would have to consult the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to see where the path is being proposed. i& 28 What about street lighting? Will it be typical City or something downsized for a residential development? We have not looked into street lighting in detail yet. The City Light and Power Utility will review our plans and I'm sure will make recommendations. We would like to propose something more downsized for a development like this. 29. Was an MRD (Minor Residential Development) done for• this property? Actually, there is an MLD (Minor Land Division) in the works at the County to split off this property from the 31 acres to the west, which Dr. Wuerker also owns and is planning to build a house on. The total parcel was 45 acres, 31 of which will remain in the County. 30. Will this property be dedicating additional right-of-way for Shields and will the east side of Shields be widened too? We are dedicating an additional 20' for Shields Street on the final plat. We.will either put up the dollars or construct the improvements (whatever the City decides) for a full 50' half street. Only the west side will be widened with this project. 31. I would like to see the residential development be compatible (in density and lot size) with the surrounding lots at the Ridge, Scenic Knolls, Clarendon Hills, Applewood, and the other county subdivisions to the south and east of here. 32. I would really like to see the lots be more like 1 acre in size, at least the lots that would be along Shields Street. 33. This area is unique. There are large homes on large lots, it is a good tax base. These are not just farm houses on rural acres. I think larger lots would be appropriate here. The City should change that density requirement for areas like this. 34. Ader Acres, east of Scenic Knolls, is also large lots. 35. I have concerns about the introduction of commercial land use in this residential area. I would rather not see it. 36. What plans does the property owner have for irrigation water in this area, assuming that they bought irrigation water with this property. I couldn't speak for the owner about that subject. 8. Lots 18 through 22 and Lots 5 through 13 exceed the 660' distance from a second point of access for fire access. An approved access road must be provided to the west or dwellings built on these lots must be provided with approved residential sprinkler systems. If residential sprinkler systems are used, separate water taps must be provided in accordance with Fort Collins -Loveland Water District design criteria. Please make note on the plans how these issues will be addressed. 9. The Poudre Fire Authority will support a variance to the standard 36' city street for Johanes Drive and Taryn Court, provided that all homes are provided with a three car garage and full 3 car wide driveways, which would provide ample on - site parking opportunities. 10. The development needs to address how high ground water on the site will be dealt with. There may be opportunities for wetland mitigation through coordination with Stormwater Utility, Engineering, and Natural Resources to resolve the groundwater issue. Even with a nationwide permit, City staff will want to know how the wetland areas will be treated. Will the entire lot area be allowed to be developed or will some of the lot area be kept in a more natural state? 11. Street trees typically are to be located between the sidewalk and curb and should be at a 40' spacing. Given the location of this project and the more rural setting, the proposed plan appears to work. Verify that the proposed planting configuration does not conflict with utilities. 12. Please show a fencing detail on the plans. Staff has concerns about the fence being compatible with fencing along.Shields Street at Clarendon Hills. Will there be brick columns? 13. Ten foot rear yard setbacks for Lots 2 - 6 are minimal, given that Shields Street is an arterial street. The subdivision code requires a minimum lot depth of 150' for lots backing onto an arterial. If the PUD will vary this standard the impacts should be off -set with additional landscaping, larger setbacks, fencing, etc. 14. Please indicate on the plans that a minimum of one street tree per lot per front or side street frontage will be provided and planted in the front yard area. This would be two trees for Lots 25, 15, 4, and 8 with one tree for the remainder of the lots. 15. The residential project will need a variance to the density chart (even if the zoning condition is approved) if sufficient points t6 justify the proposed density are not earned. Front Range Community College is more than 3000' from the project. It is possible that the proposed Fossil Creek bike trail can be used to earn 20 points which would justify a density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre. Staff will have to discuss this with Parks and Recreation. 16. A variance to the Business Services Point Chart will be required for the vet clinic if it can not meet the minimum score of 50%. The project can not take points for contiguity and would thus score 40%. Variances are not given to individual criteria, but to the overall Point Chart. Staff suggests that you consider energy conservation in the design of the clinic. I have included the new Business Services Point Chart which includes the updated energy conservation points. There are two methods which can be used to earn points for energy conservation. In order for the vet clinic to meet the minimum of 50% on the Point Chart, it would have to earn a minimum of 2 points on the energy conservation worksheet (the multiplier is 2, 2x2=4). A new office building should have little trouble earning at least 2 points. Please review the two methods and submit a new Business Services Point Chart and an energy conservation worksheet with your revisions. If a variance is still required, please submit a variance request addressed to the Planning and Zoning Board. If no points are taken for energy conservation please explain. 17. Parking for the vet clinic appears minimal. Please submit more information about the clinic, such as number of employees, number of clients, number of examining rooms and hours of operation. The City requires at least 2 spaces per three employees and uses a guideline 3.5 to 5.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of medical office space. Staff feels that there should be at least 10 spaces for this use. 18. Include a note on the site plan stating how this project addresses the solar orientation ordinance. If all of the lots are greater than 15,000 square feet, they are exempt from the ordinance. 19. Include a note on the site plan stating how the wetland areas will be addressed and treated. Please list the number of the corps permit as well. 20. Are the trees shown at the southeast corner existing? 21. Show The Ridge, Applewood Estates, and Clarendon Hills on the vicinity map. Also show all County zoning in the area. The Ridge is zoned RLP, the T zone wraps around it. 22. Please include a Planning and Zoning Board signature block. 23. Indicate the new right-of-way that is to be dedicated. 24. Change the zoning statement to RLP with PUD condition and with a condition that the minimum density be 1.5 DU/AC. 25. One of the requirements of preliminary approval is for preliminary architectural elevations. Please submit elevations for the vet clinic, to show general architectural intent, material, height, roof type and material, colors, etc. 26. We should schedule a time to meet with the Transportation Department on general transportation issues in this section. 27. There are substantial soils problems with this site. The soils report and drainage report both indicate that there are substantial engineering issues which need to be addressed preliminarily at this time. Please be aware that there will be many engineering design issues for final. 28. Please submit a separate variance request for the street widths, addressed to the engineering department. Justification should include how public health, safety and general welfare will be considered, primarily, where off- street parking will occur. 29. Please consult with.the Engineering Department for specifics on the temporary cul-de-sac. The design as shown would require money up front from the developer for the City to use to remove the cul-de-sac and re -landscape the properties. The cul-de-sac bulb will not be allowed to remain when and if the road is extended. 30. The neighborhood asked for information about the types of houses that would be built. Please provide any information that would help address their concerns. Will there be covenants that might answer this question? 31. Another question that came up at the neighborhood meeting was street lighting. Do you have any information on lighting at this time? 32. Additional Stormwater Utility comments will be forwarded to you as soon as they are available. This concludes staff comments at this time. In order to stay on schedule for the December 17, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, please note the following deadlines: Plan revisions are due November 25, 1992 by 12:00 noon. PMT9s, colored renderings, and 10 prints are due Dec. 7th. Final mylars and other documents are due Dec. 10th by 12:00. If you have any questions about these comments or would like to schedule a time to meet to discuss them, please contact me at 221- 6750. Sincerely, Kirsten Whetstone Project Planner November 4, 1992 Re: Aspen Ridge P.U.D. COMMUNICATIONS Review of these plans should not be construed as a commitment that telephone facilities sufficient to serve this project are presently available. U S WEST will provide telephone service in accordance with the rates and tariffs on file with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Telephone facilities generally occupy rear lot utility easements, which must be located on terrain which permits trenching operations and which do not conflict with trees, fences, ditches, and so forth. The 6' privacy fence inside of the easement along South Shields would conflict with construction and maintenance of utilities to be located there. A usable easement inside of the fence should be provided. It should be wide enough to accommodate telephone cable and any other utilities to be located in this easement. This plat should be revised to provide rear lot utility easements for access to all lots. Additionally, side lot easements would be required along the west side of Lot 12, along the west side of Lot 15, along the west side of Lot 7, and along the north side of Lot 4. At the west side of Lot 4, a utility easement wide enough to accommodate all utilities to be located there should be provided. We suggest 12' minimum. A 15' by 30' pocket easement for three large telephone equipment cabinets would be required in the general vicinity of the northeast corner of the P.U.D. The developer is responsible for provision of all trench and street crossings for telephone facilities within the project, and the developer pays up front construction costs for facilities within the development. Any relocation of existing telephone facilities required by these plans will be paid for by the developer. Susan M. Peterson Manager Network & Technology Services 303-224-7473 a coyyINS -?i o � w d 9�,�R DLSS4~Gti M E M CD SOUTH FORT COLLINS Sanitation District TO: Karsten Whetstone, City of Foi.t. Collins Planning Dept. 1� 00, FROM: Terry Farril.l, Systems Engineer C- THRU: Mike DiTullio, District Manager h9, DATE: November 3, 1992 SUBJECT: 50-92B Aspen Ridge PUD - Preliminary The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above mentioned proiect and submits the following comments. 1. The property will be required to petition into the Sc:th Fort Collins Sanitation District prior to approval of construction drawings. 2. In order to provide fire flows and domestic: service, the developer: will be required to install a 12 inch water line from Taft Hill Road east to the development. A pressure regulating valve is required in Fossil Cr. D1:1ve. The meaning of the square symbol on the water lines at the end of the cul-de-sacs is unclear. 4. Valves and short stubs are to '-Ie provided for all future water ling extensions. If you have any questions or require furtl;er .IciforrlaklAo,n. please do not hesitate to contact me at 22E 3J"G 1. 4700 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Telephone 226.3104-689.4321 FAX (303)226.0186 � SUMMARY The following are QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, and RESPONSES expressed at a Neighborhood Meeting for Wuerker Planned Unit Development (PUD). This is a proposal for approximately 25 single family lots on 14 acres located south of Fossil Creek Drive (extended) and west of South Shields Street. The property is currently in the County. The owner has filed an annexation petition with the City, for annexation to the City of Fort Collins. The annexation hearing is scheduled for December 15, 1992 at the City of Fort Collins Council Chambers. Note: All responses are from the applicant or consultant, unless otherwise specified. MEETING PLACE: McGraw Elementary School MEETING DATE: October 21, 1992 MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m. CITY PLANNER: Kirsten Whetstone COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS 1. Is the property to the north of this proposal already in the City? Yes, that property was annexed into the City several years ago as the Hahn/Seven Springs Annexation. 2. Would annexation of the Wuerker property mean that Scenic Knolls and Applewood Estates would be eligible or forced to annex? Staff: No, property can only be forced to annex after it has been surrounded for a period of three or more years by properties that are in the City of Fort Collins. This annexation would not "close" the loop. Applewood Estates is already eligible for voluntary annexation because it has the necessary amount of contiguity to existing City limits. 3. Why are the proposed lots so small? Existing lots in the surrounding area are much larger, between 1/2 to 5 acres. I think that these lots should be larger to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The City (Planning Department) feels that the lots are too large, given the policies in the Land Development Guidance System which indicate that properties developing within the City limits should be developed at urban densities (3-5 DU/acre). This proposal is less than that, it is about 2 DU/acre. 4. What would this development look like, say compared to Clarendon Hills Subdivision? Would it be like the northern or southern part? These lots are about 1/2 acre lots so they are more like the lots at the southern section of Clarendon Hills. Although, there are some 1 acre lots in that area, and these lots would be smaller than those. Clarendon Hills averages out to about 3 or slightly less than 3 DU/acre, this development would be about 1.8 to 2 DU/acre. 5. I am also concerned about lot size. I think the lots should be more compatible with the lots in the neighborhood. Scenic Knolls has a minimum lot size of about 2.5 acres and many of the lots are 5 acres in size. Staff: One reason the lots in Scenic Knolls are so large is that they have septic systems and there is a minimum lot size. The proposed lots will be on City services (water, sewer, power...). The City policies which dictate the urban densities are justified by the expense of providing City services to low density developments and the concern about urban sprawl at the expense of the community at large. For instance, Parks and Recreation has a policy of locating a neighborhood.park in nearly every square mile. In order to pay for the park they collect parkland fees of $625.00 per unit based on an estimated number of units at an urban density. If there are fewer units then Parks falls short on collecting funds to purchase, design, and construct parks in these mile sections. There are other City fees that work this way as well. 6. We own the property to the south, about 35 acres. We don't plan on developing it, we plan to keep it .the way it is. 7. Don't plan on the future collector street coming through the property to the south. We do not intend to develop it, we plan to keep it open for a long time. So don't count on being able to put the collector through our property to connect Shields and Taft Hill. 8. I am concerned about quality progress. Are there assurances that this will be a quality development? Is Dr. Wuerker going to do the development or is he going to sell the lots to builders. Dr. Wuerker is a dentist, he is not in the development business, I assume that he will sell the lots to builders or to people who would then hire builders to build homes. 9. I am concerned that this development blend in with the area. I would like to see custom homes that are similar to the existing homes. I would like to see covenants, architectural a review boards, homeowner's associations.. and whatever else it takes to guarantee that these houses will be like ours. 10. I don't understand why the City would allow such a high density project next to the very low density, rural subdivisions already here. Why don't they develop in the County so the City requirement does not apply. If Dr. Wuerker develops the property with anything more than 1 house on the entire property he has to develop in the City because the property is eligible for annexation. The City does not consider this development high density. 11.. I have concerns about the vet clinic. How would they dispose of dead.animals? Would there be an incinerator? The vet clinic is proposed to be„a residential scale clinic. There would not be an incinerator, to my knowledge. The vet clinic is being proposed for preliminary approval at this time but it will be 2 or 3 years before the clinic would be constructed. Prior to that, a second neighborhood meeting could be held to discuss the details of the clinic. The applicant does not really have many details at this time. 12. Would the zoning on the corner for the vet clinic be commercial? No, the proposed zoning for the entire property is rlp, low density planned residential with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)• condition. This means that anything proposed here would have to be processed and reviewed according the requirements and criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. Any use at the corner would require a PUD. 13. Would having preliminary approval for a vet clinic on this corner make it easier for someone to propose a fast food restaurant or convenience center on that corner. No, each land use is evaluated according to the point chart which is applicable to the specific use. A vet clinic use is quite different from a convenience center and the requirements are different. Any change in proposed use would have to go through the entire process, including a neighborhood meeting to get input from the neighborhood. 14. What would these lots sell for? I don't know for sure, but probably in the range of $35,000 to $50,000 per lot. 15. Is the property to the west owned by the same person? Yes.