HomeMy WebLinkAboutGOLDEN MEADOWS FIFTH REPLAT OF TRACT A REPLAT OF LOTS 1-22 - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-08-05PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
DATE: 7 Aug go DEPARTMENT:
ITEM. 78-80E GOLDEN MEADOWS, Sth Filing, REPLAT OF LOTS i - 22
Preliminary & Final
No Problems
_ Problems or Concerns (see below)
a,,ww Awma i t. v-t.;FvA-na.x 1N
"6'vD ?VV Auk AkuP5
DISC e'6 M-> Ar66.e �4 1:1oOM I VA• Ca1J� TU
WkI�Rc�
44Z Ctrs is MA-Nlk lAI&, Al- N- r*dPpe y uNI �
Date
Signature rgg 94t
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
281 N. College P.O.Boz 580 Fort Collins. Cob 80522-0580 17071221-,750
Citv of Fort Collins
Develov._ ent Services
Plannin1 Department
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: GARY HUETT
PUBLIC SERVICE
FROM: Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator
DATE: 7 August 1990
RE: Subdivision Utility Plans
Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for:
Golden Meadows, 5th Filing, Replat of Lots 1 - 22
Please respond by:
Friday, 17 August 1990
YI o camn,jZL .
it l .,, rii A\,'i,l:, ,` , , ,A ,,,It l ,'I�1II, , , ,'-,__ 1- ,' ]i�:, _-, . '^I
Citv of Fort Collins
Develop. _nt Services
Planning Department
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
U.S. WEST ENGINEERING
124 W. Magnolia
Port Collins, CO 80521
FROM: Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator
DATE: 7 August 1990
RE: Subdivision Utility Plans
Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for:
Golden Meadows, 5th Filing, Replat of Lots 1 - 22
Please respond by:
Friday, 17 August 1990
Develop- nt Ser✓ices
Planning liepartment
,.auarrvraz�•
City of Fort Collins
August 22, 1990
Mr. Phil Robinson
Stewart and Associates
214 North Howes Street
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Staff has reviewed the request for the Replat of Golden Meadows Fifth Filing,
Lots I through 22, and the Preliminary and Final P.U.D. and offers the
following comments:
I. We have received a plat sheet and two landscape sheets. We need a P.U.D.
cover sheet and a typical architectural elevation. The P_U.D. cover sheet
dil(crs from the plat sheet in that it will not be recorded at the County and
contains information regarding standard notes, fencing, planning objectives,
entry signage, scthacks, land use data table, and title in the lower right corner.
The P.U.D. cover sheet should also contain the signature block for the owner,
with notary, but without an attorneys certification. The City approval block
is for the Planning and Zoning Board. The P.U.D. cover sheet should also be
labeled sheet one of four (assuming a fourth sheet for architectural typicals).
Like the plat, the P.U.D. cover sheet contains a vicinity map, north arrow and
scale, and legal description.
2. Utility mains arc existing in Monte Carlo and Wheaton Drives. The mains
needed to serve this development should be connected to these existing utility
mains.
3. A
water main and
sewer main are
existing along the northern property
line of
this development.
They may not
be used to provide service for this
property.
They should be
included within
an exclusive 30 foot easement.
4. An minimum eight foot utility easement will be required along the front
lots for all interior streets.
5. An existing streetlight will have to be relocated at the expense of the
developer. Enclosed please find a copy of the overall utility plan with the
new location for the street light.
6. The Public Service Company is concerned that there may be insufficient
distance between the back of the sidewalk and the front building line to allow
proper installation of front lot utilities. The PSCo. is accustomed to having 13
feet dedicated as utility casement from back of sidewalk. Adjacent to this 13
cct is usuallv e minimum of two feet before the building line for a total of
I feet. This is considered a minimum for PSCo. There is also a concern
.shout the amount of 1)10{10scd landscaping located in the front lot utility
c.ucntcnt. This arc:,t is normally reserved for utilities. A utility coordination
meeting ms% be prjcicnt givcn these concerns.
7. The earlier plat provided an access for the Sewer Department to service
the manholes along the north property line. How will access to these manholes
be preserved? Please indicate.
8. The site plan should show the location of the handicap access ramps.
Also, please provide a ramp between Lots 14 and 15.
9. Lots 1, 2, 3, 23, and 24 will gain access off a north -south street whereas
Iva Court is an cast -west street. This may cause confusion for addresses.
Should the north -south link have a separate street name? Please contact Mike
Spurgin at the U.S. Post Office (482-2837) if this subdivision will have one,
central collection box, or if there will be individual delivery to each unit. If
there is to be one central box, then it's location should be indicated on the site
plan. Again, Mr. Spurgin may have some ideas on the preferred location.
10. Staff remains concerned that there is no pedestrian linkage from the west
cul-de-sac of Iva Court to Wheaton Drive. It is Staff's recommendation that a
pedestrian connection be made in order to promote pedestrian circulation
throughout the neighborhood. Creating an enclave that turns its back on the
neighborhood is not in the public interest. A connection can be made that still
promotes privacy through the use of berming and landscaping. Staff feels that
the connection would not result in any loss privacy or exclusivity.
It. Please check with the Uniform Building Code on minimum separation
between buildings. A minimum separation of 10 feet allows for fire and
maintenance access. Lots 2-3, 7-8, 18-19, and 20-21 appear to have less than 10
feet of building separation. Staff recommends that 10 feet be specified as a
minimum separation between buildings.
12. There is a conflict with the landscape plan and the proposed drainage
Paris to be located between Lots 6 and 7, and Lots 21 and 22. How will
runoff be conveyed through the open space and proposed fencing?
13. Staff has concerns with the extent of the perimeter fencing along Wheaton
and Monte Carlo Drive. The concern is that perimeter fencing not appear as a
stockade and crowd the street as this is visually monotonous. The fencing
should be varied in height and setback to create a more interesting streetscape.
A variety in the setback would create indentations that could double as
landscape beds. The fence could be stepped down, especially at the entry, to
break up the continuous six foot height.
14. There is lack: of coniferous shrub material along the fence perimeter.
Please add more coniferous shrub beds to create more seasonal color.
15. The use of gravel along the fence perimeter appears stark. Please
investigate using a drought tolerant ground cover to replace the gravel sections.
16. Will there be any entry signage? If so, only one sign will be allowed.
17. Is it really the intention to place gravel in all the sideyards? Won't this
lend a harsh appearance' The use of gra%cl within the internal areas appears
c\,cssiac and would severcic impact the curb appeal of the units. It is Staff's
hope that this "� 15 an o\crsight and will be corrected N�ith softer, living
ground co%cr.
8. The site plan should indicate the rear yard setbacks
19. Please add a note to the landscape plan that all outside the perimeter
fencing will be maintained by the homeowner's association and not the City of
Fort Collins.
20. Please add the following three notes to the landscape plan:
"All landscaping must be secured with an irrevocable letter of credit, escrow
account, or performance bond for 125% of the valuation of the materials prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit."
"A free permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or
shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned, or removed on the public
right-of-way."
"Trees shall not be planted in the drainage swale along the north property
line."
21. The Stormwater Utility has some good ideas on the seed mixture for the
drainage swalc on the north. Please contact Susan Hayes for details.
22. The landscape plan should indicate the final contours.
23. Should the title of the plat reference that this was "Tract A" of the
Golden Meadows Fifth Filing?
24. Please submit a completed Residential Uses point chart from the L.D.G.S.
This concludes Staff comments at this time. Please contact our office at your
earliest convenience to discuss these issues. Please note the following deadlines
for the September 24, 1990 Planning and Zoning Board hearing:
Plan revisions are due September 5, 1990.
P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, and colored renderings are due September 17, 1990.
Final documents are due September 20, 1990.
Planning and Zoning Board worksession is September 21, 1990.
Again, please contact our office to discuss these comments.
Sincerely:
Ted Shepard
Project Planner
cc: Mike Herzig, Development Engineer
Sherry Albertson -Clark. Senior Planner
E n c