HomeMy WebLinkAboutKINGSTON WOODS PUD SECOND FILING PRELIMINARY - 58 91B - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSJuly 21, 1992
Don Frederick
Frederick Land Surveying
1528 N. Lincoln
Loveland, CC 80537
Dear Don:
City staff has reviewed the Kingston Woods PUD, 2nd Filing and has the..
following comments to make:
1. The existing 10' utility easement shown along the north property
line of the Second Filing, Block 1, Lots 3-8, is an exclusive Mountain
Bell easement. The drainage facility shown on the Master Utility Plan
should occupy a separate utility easement. In order to cross the
Mountain Bell easement with the drainage facility, the developer- would
obtain permission from US West.
For rear lot telephone service to Block 1, Lots 9-13, a utility
easement should be added at the east property line of Lots 8 and 9.
This easemena should be to the west of the existing 20' s/l easement.
Review of these plans should not be construed as a commitment that
telephone facilities sufficient to serve this development are presently
available. US West will provide service in accordance with the rates
and tariffs on file with the PUC.
Telephone facilities generally occupy rear lot utility easements, which
must be located on terrain which _permits trenching operations. If the
developer prefers a front -lot telephone layout, then the front lot
easement should be wide enough to accommodate all utilities to be
located there. The developer is responsible for provision of all
trenches for phone facilities within the project and pays up front
construction costs for facilities within the development.
2. The low stone wall proposed to be built in Tract A represents a
conflict regarding use of the 8' utility easement adjoining the street
r-o-w for the installation and maintenance of natural gas lines.
This wall needs to be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the
easement. This also pertains to the wall proposed at the NW corner
of Horsetooth and Richmond.
3. Additional comments will be provided with red -lined utility plans,
from Engineering, Stormwater and Water and Sewer.
4. The following information needs to be added and/or clarified on the
site plan:
- land uses, existing structures within 150' of the site;
- design for the proposed stone wall, including materials, color and
height/depth;
- percentages of solar oriented lots added to the land use data; and
- fencing planned along backs and sides of lots along Patterson,
including placement, height and materials. Fencing planned along the
street should be designed to provide the desired privacy in a
visually attractive way. Perimeter fencing should also be addressed.
.Typically, fencing along detention or other open space areas is
limited to 4' in height. Fencing proposed along Horsetooth should be
consistent with Kingston Woods First Filing.
5. Street trees should be provided along the Richmond Drive frontage
at approximate 40' spacing, except where conflicts with street light
spacing occur. -These trees. -would be maintained by the Homeowner's
.Association
6. One deciduous shade tree should be provided per street frontage,
per lot.
7. Lots ,4 and 6 of Block 2 and Lots 3, 8 and 10 do not appear to meet
the definition of a solar oriented lot. Lot 1 of Block 1 is a solar
oriented lot, because the south property line is adjacent to a public
right-of-way.
8. We are interested in seeing the previous design that met the 65%
solar orientation requirement, if available. Also, the suggestion for
restricting the design of buildings on two of the lots is good. More
information (locations, type of restrictions) should be provided on
this.
9. The proposed streetscape treatment along Horsetooth Road should be
consistent with the treatment planned for Kingston Woods First Filing..
10. Clarification is needed on why the street tree plantings on
Patterson do not continue through the site. Also, clarification is
needed on the location of these trees, with respect to any proposed _
fencing.
11. We are concerned about the proposed setbacks. A 3' sideyard
setback is very limited and the lots appear to be large enough for a
minimum 5' sideyard setback (or 10' between structures). The 10'
corner side yard setback may "encroach" visually into the street. We
would recommend making this setback consistent with the front setback.
Finally, rear yard setbacks should be consistent the those approved for
Kingston Woods First Filing.
12. The inside radius on the proposed cul-de-sacs should be 35'
13. Further research is needed by staff to determine if an amendment to
the approved Overall Development Plan (formerly known as a Master Plan)
is necessary for this proposal. A response on this topic will be
available early next week.
Revisions addressing the comments above must be submitted to my office
on the following schedule:
Wednesday, August 5, 1992 Five copies of the site plan
Monday, August 17, 1992 Ten folded copies of the site plan,
an 8-1/2" x 11" PMT and a colored
rendering of the site plan
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me
at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Whetstone
by Sherry Albertson -Clark
cc Kerrie Ashbeck
file