Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONERIDGE PUD OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 21 92B - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSe KAPLAN COMPANY June 3, 1992 Ted Sheperd, Senior Planner Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Re: StoneRidge P.U.D. ODP and First Phase Preliminary Plan Dear Ted: The May 20,1992 staff comments you prepared regarding the Overall Development Plan and Preliminary P.U.D. First Filing have been reviewed by project architect/planner Frank Vaught, project engineer Stan Myers and myself, and I am herein presenting our responses. These correspond in numbering to the comments in your letter. StoneRidge Overall Development Plan 1. A "master utility plan" for the Overall Development Plan was submitted by BDR Engineering, Inc. on May 4, 1992. Please let me know if you cannot locate it or if other information is required. 2. Applicant understands and agrees with the requirement for providing a second point of access as the project is phased from west to east. 3. The need for a full 8 to 10 feet in order to provide a "safe width for two directional travel" to the bike/pedestrian way is questioned by the applicant. This seems to be excessive, and would add more to an appearance of unnecessary concrete, thereby reducing greenbelt, than it would to safety. The bike/pedestrian way is one lane in each direction; adequate width should not be predicated upon the misuse of this route by bikers riding side -by -side. The average bike is 18 inches wide and with a rider would not be more than 24 inches in width. By providing a full 12 inches of concrete to the outside lane on each side and a full 18 inches between bikers at the moment of crossing one another, a "safe" width would appear to be 7 feet 6 inches. One may argue that the width should provide for the rare occasion of two bikers and a pedestrian crossing a point on this route simultaneously. Over the 1300 feet of bike/ pedestrian way running north -south through this project, the odds of this happening are approximately one out of 67,600 instances when there are two bikers and a pedestrian on this route at the same time. Should two bikers and a pedestrian, assuming that they are watching where they are going, anticipate crossing the same point at the same time, the "awareness factor" would no doubt prevent a collision. This factor works successfully at least 100 million times a day on the crowded streets of our cities. 1060 Sailors Reef • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • 303/226-6819 June 3, 1992 Page Two The developer believes that a maximum width of 7.5 feet is a generous and certainly a "safe" dimension for the bike/pedestrian route. Anything greater would appear like a roadway, be out of scale, and detract from the greenbelt feature along Caribou Drive. Certainly a 7.5 feet width would not appear as an "afterthought," as stated as a staff concern. In that the proposed First Filing indicates only one (1) street crossing to this route and locates it along the edge of an attractive greenbelt, there should be no question as to its priority treatment within the StoneRidge P.U.D. The applicant understands and agrees that the construction and maintenance of this route shall be by the developer. Once the homeowner's association is established, it will be responsible for the maintenance of this route. This bike/pedestrian way will be constructed through the First Phase as part of the improvements associated with the patio home area. 4. The ODP shows the bike/pedestrien way extending all the way to the north property line and connecting to the route shown on the Pine Cone Farm P.U.D. ODP. Such a connection is a highly expedient route from future developments north and west of the StoneRidge P.U.D. to the Caribou Drive/Horsetooth Road inter section. This intersection has the potential for signaiization, and the bike route continues to the south past Linton Elementary School. Additionally, this bikelpedestran way is easily accessible both from the general roadway system in the ODP, as well as from the sidewalk along Horsetooth Road. 5. Please see attached Variance Request to Solar Orientation Ordinance. The area of the StoneRidge P.U.D. First Filing is a portion of the Webster Farm Second Annexation for which conditional RLP zoning requiring approval as a planned unit developmental has been prescribed by the City Council and accepted by the property owner. The applicant of the StoneRidge P.U.D. Overall Development Plan and First Phase Preliminary Plan has read Ordinance No. 142, 1991 pertaining to the solar orientation for residential lots and has noticed the following language in Section 9 to this Ordinance: "For all single- and two-family residential lots less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in area in a subdivision not required to be approved as a planned unit development, sixty- five (65) percent of the lots shall conform to the definition of a `solar -oriented lot' in order to preserve the potential for solar energy usage." In that this property is "required" to be submitted as a P.U.D., and the applicant has not elected the P.U.D. development approach in return for a more intensive land use or concessions to standard subdivision requirements, the applicant questions whether the application of the 65 percent criteria even applies in the case of this project. While Section 2 does add the 65 percent criteria to the All Development Criteria for planned unit developments, it does so in a general manner, only to be clarified by Section 9 which distinguishes, for the purposes of the 65 percent criteria, between a subdivision "required to be approved as a planned unit developed" and one not so required. June 3, 1992 Page Three The applicant can understand the basis for such a distinction. The involuntary burden of requiring P.U.D. approval would appear to exempt a subdivision from the additional burden of the 65 percent requirement. Voluntary P.U. i ). approval in return for a broader range of land uses and flexibility to subdivision standards is appropriate for a required compliance with the Ordinance. Certainly, the language of the Ordinance appears to distinguish subdivisions "required to be approved as a planned unit development" as not being subject to the 65 percent criteria. If this is not the opinion of the Planning Staff, then please inform the applicant as to why the Ordinance is at least not ambiguous on this issue. 6. The requested reference has been made. 7. The number of total potential units has been indicated. StoneRidee Preliminary First Filing 8. The revised Preliminary Plan includes a 28 foot private street for the patio home area. This street is single -loaded for the entire length serving the 26 lots, except for a segment where lots 10, 11 and 12 are across from lots 24, 25 and 26. In this instance, the road has been slightly curved and driveways have been staggered across the street from each other in order to avoid reducing unobstructed access for fire engines. Parking stalls have been included in the cul-de-sac balb to the north as a way to minimize the impact of cars parked on the street. These parking stalls are located within the highest concentration of patio home lots. The positioning of lots along this 28 foot street would not require the enforcement of a "No Parking" sign. 9. The applicant understands and agrees with the generic concerns of U.S. West. 10. The applicant understands and agrees with this requirement of the Light and Power Department. 11. The applicant understands and agrees with the guidelines for positioning streetlights relative to trees. 12. The applicant understands and agrees that the Final Plat should delineate front and rear yard utility easements. 13. Drainage areas will be designed as requested. 14. A Sight Distance Easement will be shown on the Final Plat and the recommended notes will be included. 15. The alignment of Caribou Drive in the project with Caribou Drive to the south has been verified. June 3, 1992 Page Four 16. The applicant understands and agrees with staff comments regarding the requirements for islands in public streets. 17. This shall be done. 18. The name "Red Stone" has been changed to "Brownstone" Court thus eliminating a potential conflict. 19. The applicant met on June 1, 1992 with City Forester Tim Buchanan. Unfortunately, the row of seven (7) mature cottonwood trees along Horsetooth Road in front of the farm house must be removed for street widening. Two additional trees further east must be removed for the same reason. The applicant would like to retain a large cottonwood in the new R.O.W. on the northwest corner; however, the City Forester questions whether unavoidable root disruption during the installation of improvements makes this a realistic expectation. 20. The applicant does not want one street address for the patio homes. This was not done for the patio homes in South Ridge, also fronting on a private road. 21. Please see applicant's response to staff comment No. 3. 22. Will the City replace the nine (9) trees along Horsetooth Road which must be removed for street widening? The applicant understands that the maintenance of surface treatment and an irrigation system within the R.O.W. along the arterial will be the responsibility of a homeowner's association. 23. The seed mixture for open space areas is a drought tolerant mixture and will be described on the Final Landscape Plan. 24. The plans for both fencing along Horsetooth Road as well as lot and privacy fencing have been submitted as part of the revised Preliminary Plan. 25. This has been done. Also, please see attached Variance Request to Solar Orientation Ordinance. 26. In the patio home area, the building envelop setback from the west property line is a minimum of 15 feet for the two-story patio home models and approximately 20 feet for the one-story models. Patio home lot depth along the west property line average over 110 feet which is similar to the lot depth of the proposed single-family lots on the west side of this property line. The applicant urges the City to require the developer to the west to participate in the design and construction cost of a common fence along this west property line. The StoneRidge P.U.D. should not have to bear the entire cost of this fence, nor would the aesthetics of a fence design be served by allowing uncoordinated fence construction by individual single-family lot owners in the standard subdivision to the west. 27. This vicinity map has been included in the revised plans. June 3, 1992 Page Five The applicant wishes to note that the Final Plan for the First Filing was submitted to the City on June 1, 1992 for the July 27 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. This is an essential schedule to the developer, and the cooperation of staff is most appreciated. Very truly yours, Lester M. Kaplan