HomeMy WebLinkAboutDAKOTA PINES PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 60 91F - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSCommur Planning and Environmental
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
March 18, 1993
Mr. Eldon Ward
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Eldon:
vices
The Planning Department has coordinated the interdepartmental review of Dakota Pines,
Preliminary and Final P.U.D., and offers the following comments:
The Public Service Company is concerned about installing natural gas mains and service
lines to supply townhouse lots 28 through 39. Since there is restricted space in Tract A,
between lots, it may be difficult to achieve the minimum required separation from
water and sewer lines, which will also occupy this space.
2. U.S. West cautions that review of the plans should not be construed as a commitment to
serve the project. U.S. West will provide telephone service in accordance with the rates
and tariffs on file with the Colorado P.U.C.
3. Telephone facilities generally occupy rear lot utility easements, which must be located
on terrain which permits trenching operations.
4. U.S. West requires a 15' x 30' easement at the southwest corner of this property for
interface boxes to serve all Dakota Ridge. The plat should be amended to show this
easement. Additionally, we require a utility easement along the common property line
of Lots 26 and 27 for access to Lots 1 through 11.
5. 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.
6. The water and sewer mains associated with the First Filing of Dakota Ridge must be
accepted for City maintenance prior to issuing permits for this filing.
7. On the plat, please delete the signature block for the City Clerk. Also, please label the
plat Sheet One of One.
8. On the plat, the control monuments need to be described and the outer boundary
monuments need to be described.
9. On Dakota Ridge First Filing, the existing irrigation lateral was placed in a pipe. If this
is to be the case on Dakota Pines, then be sure the pipe is sufficiently separated from
other utility easements.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. 13az 580 • Fart COIllnS, CO 805222-0580 • (303) 221-6750
10. Staff applauds the detached walk along Red Mountain Drive and placing of street trees
in the parkway strip. This will match the design of Dakota Ridge First Filing across
the street. The detached walk, however, may fall outside the typical 54 feet of right-of-
way dedicated for a local street. If this is the case, then an additional pedestrian/access
easement should be platted so the public sidewalk is not located on private property.
11. The developer's engineer should verify that Pike Circle intersects with Red Mountain
Drive at an angle no greater than 10 degrees 100 feet back from the flow line as per City
standards. If this design criteria cannot be met, a variance request or modified design
must be prepared for review by the City Engineer.
12. Flow line profiles are required for Pike Circle.
13. There is one street tree along Red Mountain Drive in front of Lot 39 that is within 40
feet of an existing street light. This,tree should be shifted accordingly.
14. The Poudre Fire Authority has the following comments:
A. The private drive serving the townhomes must have a 20' inside and 40' outside
turning radius.
B. The 24' and 20' wide drive aisles, where there is no head -in parking, must be
posted "No Parking - Fire Lane" and the curbs painted red.
C. An additional fire hydrant must be provided at the entrance to the private drive.
15. The Site Plan indicates there are nine solar oriented lots. This should also be indicated
on the plat. The Site Plan should include a note that nine out of.39 lots equals 23
percent of the total. A variance request should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning
Board for a variance from the requirement that 65 percent of the lots comply with the
Solar Orientation Ordinance. It appears the north -south orientation of the property
may be grounds for a variance as well as the competing objectives of complying with
other City policies as described in the Planning Objectives.
16. The City Forester recommends the two street trees that are Royal Red Maple,
located along Horsetooth Road, be changed to a species rated three or higher for
irrigated streetscapes on the enclosed species use list.
17. Based on survival rates and hardiness, the City Forester further recommends that the
Newport Plum and the Bechtel Crab be substituted for species that are better acclimated
for our local conditions. Please contact Tim Buchanan if you have any questions.
18. It is recommended the six Tam Junipers along the base of the Horsetooth fence be
substituted for six Compact Tam Junipers.
19. It is not clear what is meant by the "zero maintenance areas" referred to in note number
seven on the Landscape Plan. It would be helpful to have a further explanation of this
concept.
20. Staff is concerned about the solid fencing along Horsetooth. Has it been considered to
provide any openings in the fence for visual or pedestrian sidewalk purposes? At
minimum it would seem convenient to provide a pedestrian access to the arterial
sidewalk system, similar to the open cul-de-sacs in Fox Meadows. Please consider
openings or articulations to minimize the solid fence appearance along the arterial street.
21. Does the developer plan on submitting architectural elevations for the townhome units?
Such elevations should include a description of the garage and carport units as well the
living units.
22. In general, Staff finds the side mounted garages to be an attractive solution to the
challenge of creating an attractive streetscape in moderate density housing.
23. Will it be up to the individual lot owner of the patio homes to provide foundation
plantings? Perhaps a note clarifying the extent of the developer's obligation of
landscaping in the patio home area would be helpful.
This concludes Staff comments at this time. In order to stay on schedule for the April 26, 9993
Planning and Zoning Board meeting, please note the following deadlines:
Plan revisions are due April 7, 1993
P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, colored renderings are due April 19, 1993
Final documents are due April 22, 1993.
Please call to discuss these comments or to arrange a meeting to cover the issues in depth.
Sincere
Ted Shepard
Senior Planner
xc: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner
Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer
r
SHADE TREES
IRRIGATED
IRRIGATED
SIDEWALK
NON -IRRIGATED
NON -IRRIGATED
GRAVEL
PARKS
STREETSCAPES
STREETSCAPES
DETENTION
OR
POND/PARK/
MULCH BED
OPEN SPACE
SPECIES
1.
Hackberry
5
4
5
3
3
3
2.
Little Leaf
5
5
4
3
2
4
Linden
3.
Burr Oak
5
5
2
4
4
3
4.
Marshall
5
5
3
3
3
3
Green Ash
5.
Patmore
5
5
3
3
3
3
Green Ash
6.
Honey Locust
3
4
4
4
3
3
7.
Summit
Green Ash
4
4
2
2
2
3
S.
Redmond
4
5
2
0
0
3
Linden
9.
American
4
5
2
1
1
0
Linden
10.
Kentucky
2
3
2
2
1
3,
Coffee Tree
11.
Western
3
2
0
2
1
2
Catalpa
12.
Ohio Buckeye
3
3
0
0
0
3
13.
Narrow Leaf
0
0.
0
3
5
0
Cottonwood
14.
Chinese
2
1
0
1
1
2
Catalpa
15.
Sargent
3
0
0
0
4
0
Cottonwood
16.
Lance Leaf
3
0.
0
0
4
0
Cottonwood
17.
Ginkgo
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
SHADE TREES
IRRIGATED IRRIGATED SIDEWALK NON -IRRIGATED NON -IRRIGATED GRAVEL
PARKS STREETSCAPES STREETSCAPES DETENTION
POND/PARK/
MULCH BED
OPEN SPACE
IF SPECIES
18. White Ash
2
3
2
0
0
19. American Elm
2
1
0
1
2
20. English Oak
3
3
0
0
0
21. Yellow
2
2
0
0
0
Buckeye
22. Horse
1
1
0
0
0
Chestnut
23. Swamp
2
2
10
0
0
White Oak
24. Pecan
2
2
0
0
0
25. Shell Bark
2
2
0
0
0
Hickory
26. Black Ash
2
2
0
0
0
27. Manchurian
2
2
0
0
0
Ash
28. Beech
1
1
0
0
0
.29. Norway Maple
1
1
0
0
0
30. Tree of
0
0
0
0
2
Heaven
31..Sugar Maple
1
1
0
0
0
32. Red Maple
1
1
0
.0
0
33. Sunburst
1
1
0
0
0
Honey Locust
34. Black Walnut
2
0
0
0
0
35. Pioneer Elm
1
1
0
0
0
36. Tulip Tree
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
it,
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3