HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLEVINS SUBDIVISION LOT 9 PUD PRELIMINARY - 42-91 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSDevelopment Services
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
October 18, 1991
Robert K. Glover
2101 Lindenmeier Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Robert,
City Staff has reviewed your submittal for the Blevins Court Lot 9
PUD and offers the following comments:
5t~� ✓ 1. Please indicate on the site plan the proposed setbacks to all
lot lines.
2. Relocate the north arrow and scale of the site plan so it
doesn't get lost on the site plan and also, indicate a
separate scale for the vicinity map. Place the title (BLEVINS
COURT, LOT 9 PUD) in large letters across the top and center
of the Site/Landscape Plan. The plan should be labeled as a
Site and Landscape Plan, since you have combined the two on
one plan.
✓ 3. Indicate on the site plan, what the existing use is for lots
51 6, 7, 11, 14, as well as the two large lots to the north
and west of this property. What is the existing use of the
property directly to the west of this lot, is it a yard for
the existing house?
Sh►�'Vi^ 4. A fire hydrant must be provided within 400' of the lot.
Please show on the site plan and Utility plan where the
closest hydrant/s are located.
p�- 5. Any damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk must be repaired in
conjunction with this request.
✓ 6. Electric service to the building will be underground.
6t 7. The Utility Plan has a note that existing overhead electric
(and phone) will be placed underground. This will not happen
at this time, as far as electric is concerned. Contact Doug
Martine at Light and Power, if you have questions about this.
Contact US West for information on their schedule for
undergrounding existing phone lines.
64- 8. Staff encourages you to coordinate installation of the
electric system with Light and Power. There will be
development charges from Light and Power, contact Doug Martine
for more details.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0�80 • (303) 221-67,50
9. The City Water Utilities Department will install a 6-inch
water main in Blevins Ct. next spring (Spring of 1992). The
water service for lot 9 will be tapped to this main.
Coordinate with Mark Taylor at 221-6681 on the timing of your
water service.
✓ 10. A sanitary sewer main exists along the southern boundary of
this lot. A 15-foot utility easement must be provided north
of this existing sewer main, measured from the center line of
the main, 15 feet to the north. The sewer service for this
lot will be tapped to this sewer main. Please coordinate with
Kerrie Ashbeck at 221-6750 for information on how to record
that utility easement. Since the lot is already platted, you
no � kj would need to describe the easement and file a legal
e070 �r description of it as a separate document. Please provide this
ASS OJ) information to the Planning/Engineering Department and show
10�0 the easement on the site plan and Utility Plans.
11. A final planting list describing the proposed species and
�1do sizes should be shown on the site/landscape plan. This should
� include a listing for existing trees and shrubs as well. I
At have enclosed a photo copy of typical notes and planting
wo schedules and details which we request for landscape plans,
please add these to the final site/landscape plan. If you
propose to remove existing vegetation, have you first
p� considered relocating it? Staff would discourage the removal
*111"1, ,�r of any existing significant vegetation.
12. The primary concern from the Stormwater Department is that the
drainage report is a preliminary report and if this project is
going as a J _'A0 Board, then p the l drainage report al D ePlanning repor needs tobe upgraded Zoning to a
r� final, with final details.
13. Off -site flows are a major concern with this project. This
type of in -fill project typically has potential to cut-off
flows that have been routed to a vacant piece of land,
I�,.• especially in older developments where todays City standards
pry for drainage control have not been met. The report is good
for a preliminary report but lacks the final detail needed for
final approval. Please see the redlined report and plans for
detailed comments and return them to Glen Schlueter with
revisions. If you have questions about the drainage report
please contact Glen at 221-6589.
�I ,,at 14. An erosion control plan for construction should be submitted
with the final drainage plan.
15. The Utility Plans are preliminary in nature. If you intend to
A, lie" present this project to the Planning and Zoning Board as a
1�P preliminary/final PUD there are many loose ends that need to
p1� V be addressed. Please coordinate with Kerrie Ashbeck or Mike
Herzig at 221-6750 as soon as possible to ensure that you know
what Utility Plan revisions are required. Engineering will
I
0
need to review and approve the plan revisions prior to the
November 18th Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. Please do
not delay in getting them the revisions to review.
16. If you are not prepared to spend the time and money for final
Utility Plans prior to a land use decision (concerning number
w'I�b�e of units, bedrooms, parking spaces, landscaping, fencing) from
the P&Z Board, you have the option of taking this project to
�� Vic• the Board as a preliminary PUD in November and as a final PUD
�• on December 16th.
17. The site plan is labeled as a preliminary site plan which has
caused some additional confusion. Please let me know whether
1a 1k this is a preliminary or a preliminary and final PUD (you have
paid for the later, so if you decided to split it up, you
fti would not have additional planning fees).
J 18 Please label Prospect Road on the plans.
19. The orientation of the units and general configuration of the
dSg site plan is well done and shows good sensitivity to the
�Cea,i't rQtikS surrounding residential lots. Planning Staff has questions
dbc�,, � though, about the amount of parking on the site and feels that
this large amount of parking is cramping the setbacks, open �(
landscaped areas, and landscaped buffers. �`/Y.✓ccPP[�4stC(�a�F-j f ��`uje
�, yq% a� S; VJaw
2 The trashdQenclosure should be relocated to the southeast .
corner of the lot where it will be less visible from the road
7 r ¢C and the other homes. The two southern most parking spaces uvu
��ar���.� will be difficult to back out of in the configuration shown.
rn
G X \o-
would If allow llowe an space
aut mobileconverted
exitinngfor
the western space to enclosure,
have
sufficient room to back up before exiting the lot in forward.
�r Staff would recommend moving the motorcycle parking spaces to�O
�f another area (south end of parking lot?) and converting the da)'C
pf��,'o area to landscaping. Staff would encourage more landscaping d ✓
�rOO.+ 1ev��P.� of the front yard area, to be more compatible with the
�1w4 neighborhood.
a
21. Staff would like to see the landscaped buffer area, on the
east property lmie. increased to at least 71or 81. This would
then allow a 4-15� separation between the existing house to
vl S the east and a ked car in this lot.
�v c�
U1�- 7 i,l nolf
rtL�J 22.✓ Staff agrees that the fence needs to be broken up as you have
W" indicated, rather than having it a solid wall which would only
separate this use from the neighborhood rather than integrate
it. The fence should not extend beyond the front corner of ✓d Olka
the existing house to the north to preserve the openness of
the front yards. The privacy fence on the north property,,/oK
should extend to a point somewhere between the two trees. If
you still wanted it to turn east at right angles for a short
stretch for added privacy, that would be fine, but watch out
that it doesn't cut up the open areas too much.
23.f The privacy fence on the east property line should probably
extend as far as any parking. It would be better to relocate
the handicapped parking space and extend the landscaped area
into that space. The fence could then be brought back about
Q ✓ 15' which would help preserve the openness of the front yards
on Blevins Court.
24 By now you have probably noticed that we have suggested that
Jyou eliminate 3 parking spaces to make room for buffer and
landscaped areas. Making these ch es_ 11 m t possible
to address the absolute criteria #26 #27 and #28 which ask
whether the site is organized in an efficient, functional, and
cohesive manner; whether the elements of the site plan are
�d0 arranged so that activities are integrated with the
Av" organization scheme of the neighborhood; and whether the
design and elements of the site plan allows a favorable
4
relationship between the buildings, open space, circulation,
and landscaping.
26. The project meets the City requirements for parking, without
�{� j1,a the three spaces mentioned above. It may not meet the
ax2 i(aom- ,,rwAneighborhood concern or reality of each bedroom being occupied
by an automobile owner and each unit having one guest every
1$5 0 0 Z6(0"'6night. If this is the parking scenario that you anticipate,
01NSyy�j(p then it appears that a reduction in the number of units, or
bedrooms is necessary.
ego 27. Reflecting on the neighborhood's concerns about the density of
this project, from a bedroom per lot perspective, the Planning
Staff highly recommends that you consider a maximum of 6
bedrooms on this site. These 6 bedrooms could be in any kind
of configuration, from 3- duplexes to 2- triplexes or even a
one bedroom, a two bedroom and a three bedroom unit. With any
f these configurations, you would only need to provide 9
arking spaces, using your anticipated parking scenario of one
per bedroom plus one additional per unit.
j5 OIL (I -rk►Ky
From a neigdhb2rhood compatibility point of view, the people r
density of bedrooms is much more in line with the existing
character of the neighborhood, than it is with 9 bedrooms.
��ry Jr`
'`� 29. Additional landscaping should be added to soften and screen
J the east wall of the building; perhaps a few larger deciduous
Pot trees with some lower foundation shrubs would work there.
30. The other major issue on this project is the Residential
Density Point Chart. Staff does not have any problems with
_kN%t5 Criteria B. C, D, F, G, and J. Criteria E has not been
justified with a letter from the school saying that the school
0P does meet all of the requirements of the compulsory education
laws of the State of Colorado. It is your responsibility to
provide us with this information and certification, as we
normally use only public schools for this criteria. We will
not contact the school. Without certification, we cannot
count the 10 points. �k
It
�
lL` ^
/31. If you were to propose 2 units, you would need 70-80 points.
Without criteria E the project achieves 95 points, thus
meeting the Residential Density Chart.
y 2. Please provide information about the grocery store at the
p1 ,�1✓ Choice Center Shopping Center if you choose to use points from
1�� • Criteria A. Is it a full -line grocery? what is the square
footage? What are hours of operation? Also include a list of
what other shops and services are available in the center.
2 33. Does the existing neighborhood have protective covenants
recorded at the Court House? It would be a good idea to check
Jh this out, some single family neighborhoods have covenants
which prohibit the use of a lot for any use other than single
C family houses.
This concludes staff comments at this time. In order to stay on
schedule for the November 18, 1991 Planning and Zoning Board
hearing, please note the following deadlines:
Plan revisions are due October 30, 1991 by 12:00 noon.
PMT's, colored renderings, 10 prints are due Nov. 11, 1991.
Final signed mylars and other documents are due Nov. 14, by
12:00 noon.
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 A. Whetstone
Project Planner
cc Kerrie Ashbeck
David Knox
Jeff Couch
Janet Meisel
Emily Smith- Prospect Shields Neighborhood Group