Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE MEADOWS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 50-89A - - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWDevelopment Services Planning Department August 28, 1989 Mr. Dick Rutheford Stewart and Associates PO Box 429 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Mr. Rutheford: • For your information, attached is a copy of the Staff's comments concerning Replat of Stockbridge PUD which was presented before the Conceptual Review Team on August 28, 1989. The comments are offered informally by Staff to assist you in preparing the detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project. If you should have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in the review process, please feel free to call me at 221-6750. Sincerely, 4 41V"41 Sherry Alb rtson-Clark Senior Plan er SAC/git Attachment xc: Tom Peterson, Director of Planning Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator Rick Richter, Civil Engineer I Project Planner File '00 L:il'oi-te .AVt2nu(2 • P.O. Box ;SO • Fort Collins. CO SO=527-05SO l 103) CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS MEETING DATE: August 28, 1989 ITEM: Replat of Stockbridge PUD APPLICANT: Dick Rutheford, Stewart & Associates, PO Box 429, Fort Collins, CO 80522 LAND USE DATA: Request for 16 single family lots on 6.8 acres, located on Seneca Street, south of Horsetooth Road. COMMENTS: All existing electrical power is on the north side of Horsetooth Road. Power will need to be extended down the Seneca right-of-way to the prop- erty corner, at the expense of Light and Power. From the corner of the property, normal development charges would apply. It will be critical that when Seneca gets constructed, the underground electrical system be located behind the future curb and not under pavement. Any relocation of the buried underground system would be at the developer's expense. The developer would be responsible for staking the location and grade eleva- tions of this future line and to provide a written commitment verifying developer's responsibility (and not Light and Power's) should the system be incorrectly placed. 2/ The Water and Wastewater Utility will permit two single family homes to be constructed on "estate lots" using septic systems on this property. When a third unit is requested, a 12-15" public sewer line must be extended to serve the property and the existing units on septic systems must be con- verted to the public sewer. A mechanism to require installation of this sewer line must be established and may best be specified through language in the Development Agreement. Easements to permit the septic leach fields must be identified on the site plan/plat and be dedicated. 3. The Poudre Fire Authority recommends that residential sprinkler systems be incorporated into the first two homes. Several of the proposed lots would also need sprinkler systems once two points of access are provided to the site, since these lots would still exceed the 660' distance from a single point of access. A' The site is located within the Foothills Basin Master Drainage Plan. This plan shows a channel and detention pond (to hold 14 acre feet), for regional use, located on this property. The Stormwater Utility would pur- chase right-of-way for this channel but would not pay for road crossings of the channel. The detention pond would also be regional in nature. Therefore, the developer would front-end the cost of constructing the detention pond and would be reimbursed for all but the cost of on -site detention required for this particular site. A storm drainage report/plan and grading plan would be required, as per the Stormwater Utility submit- tal requirements. I 5.. The proposed private drive access for the two single family homes may be a gravel road, as long as dust abatement treatment is provided and that the driveway is adequate to support the weight of fire equipment. The point of intersection of this driveway with Horsetooth is critical and must be evaluated by City staff. 6. A temporary access easement must be dedicated for use of the private driveway. 7. United Bank, as the property owner, must provide a written commitment for participation in the street improvements to be required for Seneca Street's construction at some future date. 8. Coordination of utilities will be necessary, since sewer lines are typically installed prior to the installation of water lines. A final utility design must be provided, addressing both water and sewer installation. A commit- ment to install the subdivision improvements within three years from the date of approval will be required in the development agreement. `.9. Street oversizing fees will apply and is $584 per unit, collected at the time of building permit issuance. 10. Fencing restrictions along side or rear lot lines and street tree plantings along Seneca Street must be addressed on the PUD site plan. 11. Written justification must be provided for all Engineering -related variance requests to City standards. 12. A replat would supercede the previously -approved subdivision plat that is recorded in the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 13. As previously discussed, the proposed density does not meet the minimum 3DU/acre (gross density) as required in the Land Development Guidance System. This minimum density requirement is an absolute requirement and no residential PUD project may be approved unless a variance to this requirement is granted. Planning staff sees no reason to support a vari- ance to this density requirement, since development of this area at higher densities is supported by the Land Development Guidance System and the Land Use Policies Plan. This proposal does not meet the intent of the following policies of the City's Land Use Policies Plan (ie. 3a, 12, 14, 15, 19d and 27). Because this proposal does not meet these policies or the minimum density requirement, Planning staff would have a very difficult time recommending approval of such a proposal to the Planning and Zon- ing Board.