HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRIDGES PUD SECOND - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-05-28CITE' OF FOPT COLLINS
=FiCE _'IF�,�'/E'_OP`;:=:`JT „_-. ..��. ?I-•�;�.il':G ._,_ `RT .,F�:
June 14, 1988
Otis O'Dell
c/o Junge, Rcich and Magee
4141 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80303
Dear Sir,
For your information, attached is a copy of the Staff's comments concerning
The Bridges P.U.D., which was presented before the Conceptual Review Team
on June 13, 1988.
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 shoulld have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in
the review process, please feel free to call me at 221-6750.
Sincerely,
7
Ted Shepard
Project Planner
Attachment
TS/bh
xc: Tom Peterson, Director of Planning
Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator
Jim Faulhaber, Civil Engineer I
Project Planner
File
JtriVl-Lb. NL-�NNING
possibly in the wrong place. The Austrian Pine at the
southeast corner of the duplex building is close to the canal
and could, with the combination of ground water and irrigation
runoff tirater, be extremely wet most of the time. These pines
are not very tolerant of excessive moisture. The Buffalo
Juniper; located just north of the three parking spaces on the
east side of the cul-de-sac will look awfully lonely floating
out in the turfgrass. They would be more appropriate in a
planting bed attached to the parking area. The three Purple
Lilac shown in the center island of the cul-de-sac, assuming
they arE! to be Common Purple, are probably too large for the
space. rChey could create visibility problems later as they
approach maturity.
9. The Landscape Schedule should include a column for the
botanical names and varieties of the plants. The note stating
that "typical unit entry landscaping to be consistent with
previous-, units" should include a typical drawing. Notes should
be added to the plan indicating that an automatic sprinkler
system will be provided and that "All landscaping must be
installE!d or secured with an irrevocable letter of credit,
performELnce bond, or escrow account for 125% of the valuation
of the materials prior to issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancy".
10. It is important to show the existing single family residence
to the west and indicate what existing or proposed landscaping
and fencing is being proposed for screening and buffering.
Where is a trash receptacle/dumpster planned to be located and
what arc> the plans to buffer this receptacle?
11. The City would like to see additional screening along the New
Mercer Canal side of the project, preferably with native trees
and shrubs. The area to the south is now owned by the City for
future development as open space/storm drainage facilities.
12. One fire hydrant will have to be added at the south end of the
cul-de-sac.
13. Poudre Fire Authority has indicated that "No Parking - Fire
Lane " signs must be posted on both sides of the 24' wide
access street and on one side of the cul-de-sac. Curbs in the
no parking areas must be painted red.
14. The general, overall parking situation in the Bridges appears
to be somewhat strained. How will this development, with the
addition of two new units on a closed street, impact the
parking situation? There is parking presently on the streets
that have to be signed "No Parking". The building should be
moved to the west to allow for automobiles to park in the
driveways without overhanging into the street. At present the
driveways are shown to be only 8' to 12' long.
15 . The Water/Wastewater Department's comments
Semmes-. Please return this plan with your revisions.
16. The City Stormwater Utility has extensive comments. A copy of
their comment sheet is attached with a print of the Site
Plan/Landscape Plan that has been redlined. Please return this
print with your revisions.
17. What is the empty box next to the Vicinity Map on the Utility
and Drainage Plan for?
This completes the review comments at this time. Additional
comments may be. forthcoming as the various departments and
reviewing agencies continue to review this request. Please be aware
of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay
on the agenda for the October 19, 1992 Planning and Zoning Board
hearing:
Plan revisions are due September 30, 1992 by 12:00 noon. Please
contact me for the number of revisions required for each document.
PMT's, renderings, and 8 copies of final revisions (for the
Planning and Zoning Board packets) are due October 12, 1992.
Final documents (including the signed development agreement,
applicable mylars and utility plans) are due October 15, 1992 by
12:00 noon.
Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns
related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with
you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments.
S' rely,
St v Olt
Project Planner
xc: Kerrie Ashbeck
Sherry Albertson -Clark
Advance Planning
Stormwat:er Utility
Transportation
Stewart and Associates
file/Project Planner
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins Current Planning
DATE: 8 -12 -98 DEPT: Engineering
PROJECT: #30-98 Bridges II PUD Amended Final - LDGS
PLANNER: Steve Olt
ENGINEER: Dave Stringer
All comments must be received by: Wednesday, August 12, 1998
Show all easements on Plat or show building foot print and designate remainder as Utility, access and drainage
easement t r .r'n.
�.. y_ �� � _..a b'Y'- 'a..t ¢�..,ey �"�s �''e i..i ,�-�!`''_ rt'ti �:s—. ei-�r.'yi�4 �t
'.r.e a" ztdi-7. (E r'7 e�e4�+IC �. -
Change Attorney Certification to reflect new language, Copy attached �':' tw a . q �, .. • ,; = e u
,-Ditch Company needs to sign plans KLr,. ut � e - e e rr r r 6 V1,,, T. . p „ �o vav r 4 ee I-.
,,Show typical x-section of cul - de - sac bulb at canal, i.e., distance, percent slope , slope protection etc.
,_ Show percent grade of cul - de - sac e v a y, c : ; A V e 4. y e r .' o. s a
u Cul - de -sac to be posted with No PARKING SIGNS x a dd-,' 4 w a t
❑ Problems
Lam" Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Date: Signature:
PLEASE CFTJn rQPTFC QV XAARKFTI REVISIONS— r'—'PT AT
[1---SITE
LI—tJTILITY
r- ANDSCAPE
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Engineering
DATE: October 26, 1998 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: Ammended Bridges II P.U.D.
PLANNER: Steve Olt
Engineering Comments:
No additional comments
pp — L� E'�r�
Date: ' C l 2-6 !!! Signature:
2�� %Z->
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ PLAT
❑ SITE
❑ UTILITY
❑ LANDSCAPE
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS
MEETING DATE: June 13, 1988
ITEh1: The Bridges P.U.D.
APPLICANT: Brian Soukup c/o Otis Odell of Junge, Reich, Magee, 4141 Arapa-
hoe Avenue, Boulder, CO. 80303
LAND USE DATA: Request to relocate garage structures from the north side
of the New Mercer Ditch to the southside where the garages will be placed
under the 13 residential structures. Access to be gained by widening the
pedestrian path to a vehicular bridge.
COMMENTS:
1. The existing Light and Power conduit terminates at the end of the cul-de-
sac. This conduit would have to be extended across the proposed bridge.
This would be two 2" conduits. There would be no loop as this is a lateral
feed.
2. There is an existing sewer main and water main with hydrant in the cut -de -
sac. These mains would have to be extended across the bridge and the
hydrant would have to be relocated. The mains should be in a 30 foot
wide easement and must be separated from the electrical conduits by mini-
mum distance.
3. The structures south of the New Mercer Ditch will exceed the maximum
length allowed for fire access. This could be mitigated by providing
approved, residential fire sprinklers.
4. The records of the City Clerk indicate that the covenants for the P.U.D.
have been written but never filed. These should be filed as soon as
possible with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
5. It is possible that the proposed construction would trigger public improve-
ments on the north side of Prospect Road. These improvements may be the
obligation of the developer as per the original agreements.
6. The proposed bridges over both ditches would require the design to be
submitted and approved by the ditch companies. Theses approvals would be
formalized as signatures on the final utility plans.
7. Please be aware that there is a very high groundwater table in the area.
8. A Drainage Report would be required.
Conceptual Review Comments
Page 2
9. The City Stormwater Utility
is planning
major improvements in the Canal
Importation Basin between Taft
Hill
Road
and Shields Street. It may be
that the developer would be
required
to
construct basin improvements and
then get reimbursed by the
City for
the
work. Please contact Jan Kimzey
of the Stormwater Utility at
221-6589
for
details.
10. The P.U.D. site plan, or administrative change, must clearly define the
building envelopes. Presently, the plat that was provided at the conceptual
review meeting showed only lot lines.
ll. The plat only indicated a 20 foot easement for the bridge and a 30 foot
would be required to accommodate the utilities.
12. The original P.U.D. was approved in December of 1979. Therefore, the
project was approved prior to the adoption of the Land Development Guid-
ance System. The most applicable criterion on determining whether this
request could be approved administratively is whether or not there is a
reduction in approved open space. The Ordinance states that "...the Planning
Director shall. not approve a reduction by greater than three percent (3%) of
the approved open space."
The Assistant Planning Director has reviewed the request for an administra-
tive change to the P.U.D. versus the amendment to the P.U.D. process. The
determination is that the applicant must provide data to the Planning
Department showing the exact changes in amount of open space between the
approved Preliminary and the proposed revision. Without these figures,
the Staff is unable to rule on the request for an administrative change.
-Development Services
'tanning Devartment
Citv of fort Collins
ennmw�
MEMORANDUM
TO: - GARY HTTFTT_
PUBLIC SERVICE
FROM: Rick Richter, Civil Engineer
DATE: 4/10/89
RE: Subdivision Utility Plans
APR 13 1989
Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for:
The Bridges II P.U.D.
Please respond by: 4/20/89
T� n - " NkWeoj- &AS
-M &0 1 L-PT-4-S M LOT5 I 1(z
A '%*Wrr- N s to Rff- ';"z190RATs:` 'NTO -rt&—
pperpo%io, n4eZPAs— Acebse> Tft NESj MOXC*r, eANAL..
-r,D 645 LINE, "T�
W I rkt V%a?, T"WV-ZA,& Go
i, PA Arvo-
300 LaPorte Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (303) 221-6750
PROJECT
C„ e,�rtCollins
COMMENT SHEET
DATE : 1 Sep 92 DEPARTMENT:
ITEM: 132-79E BRIDGES II PUD - Amended Final
Please respond to this project by Friday, September 11,1992
Planner: Steve Olt
No Problems
X
:Problems or Concerns (see below)
Date: elk", A,- Signature: k�� &A11164—
CHECK IF REVISIONS REQUIRED: ❑
PLAT
SITE
LANDSCAPE
UTILITY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 281 NORTH COLLEGE P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT
C;, a,Fo�Coll„ COMMENT SHEET
DATE: 1 Sep 92 DEPARTMENT:
ITEM: 132-79E BRIDGES II PUD - Amended Final
Please respond to this project by Friday, September 11, 1992
Planner: Steve Olt
—74 No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below)
Signatur :
0
CHECK IF REVISIONS REQUIRED: ❑ PLAT
❑ SITE
❑ LANDSCAPE
❑ UTILITY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 281 NORTH COLLEGE P.O-BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT
C;, , Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET
DATE: I Sep 92 DEPARTMENT:
ITEM: 132-79E BRIDGES II PUD - Amended Final
Please respond to this project by Friday, September 11, 1992
Plann 5(. Steve Olt
No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below)
Date: I � Signature:
CHECK IF REVISIONS REQUIRED: ❑
PLAT
❑
SITE
❑
LANDSCAPE
❑
UTILITY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 281 NORTH COLLEGE P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Commu v Planning and Environmental rvices
Planning Department
City of k'ort Collins
September 18, 1992
John Dengler
John Dengler and Associates, P.C.
318 Starling Street
Fort Collins, CO. 80526
Dear John,
Staff has reviewed your submittal for the Amendment to the Bridges
II P.U.D., and would like to offer the following comments:
1. The City does not have an Amended Final P.U.D. review process
available. This request constitutes a significant change in
character from the driveways, parking areas, and garages that
were planned for this area and approved with the original
Bridges P.U.D. The proper review process is a combined
preliminary/final P.U.D. review that may include a replat of
the property. This requires a $160 submittal fee ($170 if a
plat is included) instead of the $120 that was collected with
your submittal. Also, I do not find an application in the file
and have to wonder if one was prepared with the submittal.
2. The width and depth of the building envelope(s) for the units
must be dimensioned and clearly shown. The labelling as
presently shown on the Site Plan/Landscape Plan is incomplete
and hidden in the Austrian Pines at the northwest corner of
the site.
3. The Access, Utility, and Drainage Easement on the Site
Plan/Landscape Plan must be continued to the north within the
24' wide roadway (corresponding to the Utility and Drainage
Plan).
4. The Site Plan/Landscape Plan must be expanded to show the
interior private (I assume) streets to Westbridge Drive; and,
the portion of Westbridge from the existing single family
residence west of this request to a distance 50' or so north
of the intersection with the private street. Also, a number of
other additions or modifications must be made to the plan:
a) Show the private residence so that we can see its
relationship to the proposed duplex.
b) Please indicate what exists north of the east -west
private drive in the Bridges.
281 North Cdle� e r�� enue P.O. Box �80 Fort Collins, CO 805j2-0380 • (303) 221-67 50
c) Show the existing pedestrian bridge that crosses the New
Mercer Canal. Is the canal in a 35' wide easement or
right-of-way? Who owns that parcel of ground?
d) The plan should indicate what's happening south of the
New Mercer Canal. Show the Larimer Canal No. 2 and
indicate the City's Stormwater Utility/Natural Resources
ownership.
e) A Vicinity Map of the area surrounding the site within a
distance of at least one mile, showing the zoning
districts, location of existing municipal boundary lines,
traffic circulation systems (streets), and major public
facilities.
5. The Bridges II P.U. D. , approved as a Minor Subdivision plat on
June 6, 1991, is property either side of the New Mercer Canal
and the Larimer County Canal No. 2 that includes this 22,885
square foot site. The Site Plan reviewed with this minor plat
was for 6 to 8 multi -family dwelling units on the site located
between the two canals, south of this request. The use on this
site was approved for garages, driveways, and a cul-de-sac in
1981 with the original Bridges P.U.D. In essence, the
uncertainty that exists here is "what to call this request"
and what: all needs to be submitted. The land use change is
actually wanting to occur in the Bridges P.U.D. Site Plan,
which now is a portion of Tract A of the Bridges II P.U.D.
subdivision plat. To further complicate matters, the City has
recently purchased all of the property covered on the Bridges
II P.U.D. subdivision plat except for this 22,885 square foot
parcel. The logical way to resolve this request would be to
replat the property as "A Replat of the Bridges II P.U.D.
(being a portion of Tract A of the Bridges II P.U.D.) " and
plan the property as "The Site Plan/Landscape Plan for the
Bridges II P.U.D. (a portion of the Bridges P.U.D.)".
6. It is being recommended that this property be replatted in
conjunction with this development request. A replat would
significantly clean up all loose ends that surround this
property with the recent ownership events that have taken
place. If changes to existing easements or new easements are
required. then a replat would have to be done or the easements
handled by separate document. As a minimum, the cul-de-sac and
parking as shown on the documents that were submitted have to
be contained within the Access, Utility, and Drainage
Easement., for obvious access reasons.
7. Is this request to remain in the same ownership as the
existing Bridges P.U.D. and is there/will there be a
Homeowner's Association?
8. The existing landscaping, as well as proposed, on and around
this site should be shown on the Site Plan/Landscape Plan. A
few of the plants shown on the plan are questionable or