HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTONERIDGE PUD, FIRST FILING FINAL - 21-92D - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSne KA PLA N COMPANY
July 1, 1992
Mr. Ted Shepard, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Co 80522
Re: Stone Ridge P.U.D., Phase I Final Plan
Dear Ted,
Plan revisions for the Stone Ridge P.U.D., Phase I Final Plan are
herein submitted. The Final Landscape Plan does not graphically
change from what has already been submitted and for which you have
a color slide. The following information is provided in response
to the numbered comments in your June 18, 1992 letter to architect,
Frank Vaught, regarding this Final Plan:
1. The two gas lines required along Horsetooth Road by the Public
Service Company can be accommodated within the 15 feet
"utility easement" provided for such purpose and shown on the
Final Plan. According to Gary Huett with Public Service, the
intermittent crossing of this utility easement by the
meandering 5 feet sidewalk along Horsetooth Road is acceptable
to Public Service.
2. The matter of exactly what public street design features are
appropriate for the private drive serving the patio home area
is to be discussed between City staff and the developer. The
developer anticipates this meeting to be arranged by you so
that the issues already partially presented by the applicant
to the Planning and Zoning Board on June 29, 1992 can be
resolved well in advance of the July 27, 1992 Planning and
Zoning Board consideration of the Final Plan.
3. The applicant does not understand the need for full base
asphalt at the median in Caribou Drive (now Fieldstone Drive)
in that the Landscape Plan indicates "drip irrigation" for the
landscaping in this median. Twenty (20) feet of asphalt on
both sides of the median is excessive and could confuse
motorists; however, the applicant reluctantly will comply with
this requirement.
1060 Sailors Reef • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • 303/226-6819
L'
T. Shepard
Page 2
4. The applicant has reconfigured the juxtaposition of patio home
lots 10, 11, and 12 relative to lots 24, 25, and 26 to assure
that driveways are offset.
5. This posting requirement is agreed to.
6. This fire hydrant has been added to the plans.
7. Comments from U.S. West are reflected in the revised utility
plan.
8. This designation has been done on the revised utility plans.
9. The requested plat changes have all been made.
10. The suggestions of the city Forester are reflected in the
revised Final Landscape Plan.
11. Such "precautions" are now indicated on the Final Landscape
Plan.
12. The trees along Horsetooth, Fieldstone and the open tracts
will be installed during the 1993 planting seasons.
13. The schematic details for fence types are shown on the revised
Final Landscape Plan.
14. The applicant will explore the suggested methods, but any
requirement to comply with same was not a condition to the
June 29, 1992 variance to the solar orientation ordinance.
15. The applicant is so advised.
16. Yes.
17. The applicant has discussed with the developer of the Dakota
Ridge P.U.D. cooperating in construction of a uniform rear
yard fence between the two projects, and that developer has
flatly refused to cooperate. This sets the stage for a highly
problematic situation where redundant, discordant fencing may
occur along with corridors of weeds, litter and ownership
confusion.
The applicant for the Stone Ridge P.U.D. strongly urges the
City to require a fence installation agreement requiring equal
participation between the two developers as a condition for
Final Plan approval of both projects. The public would be
ill -served if this potential problem is not addressed during
the planning approval process.
T. Shepard
Page 3
Thank you for your cooperation and suggestions with regard to this
Final Plan, and please contact me immediately regarding the need
for any additional information. we look forward to a July 27, 1992
review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Sincerely Yours,
Lester M. Kaplan