HomeMy WebLinkAboutUPPER MEADOW AT MIRAMONT PUD, 1ST FILING - FINAL - 54-87H - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSI
k`y Planning and
Planning
City of Fort Collins
June 22, 1992
Mr. Eldon Ward
Cityscape Urban Design
3030 South College Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
Dear Eldon:
9
Staff has concluded its interdepartmental review for Upper Meadow
at Miramont, First Filing, Final P.U.D. and offers the following
comments:
1. U.S. West will require an easement for telephone cable across
the south side of Lot 34 for access to Lot 33. Also,
easements will be required across Tract C between the south.
corner of Lot 31 and the southeast corner of Lot 30, and
between the southeast corner of Lot 21 and the center of the
north property line of Lot 20.
2. Since the electrical facilities end at corner of Oak Ridge and
Boardwalk, the developer may need to provide off -site
easements to in order to serve the site. Also, the developer
may have to pay for a temporary overhead line to provide an
electrical power source.
3. The plat should indicate the widths of the street right-of-
ways.
4. Please check the legal description and the plat to make sure
the bearings and distances match.
5. Please refer to red -lined utility plans for additional
comments.
6. The request for 28 foot streets in the "short" cul-de-sacs in
Filing One is justified. Please keep in mind, however, that
the longer cul-de-sacs in future filings may be required to be
built to the 36 foot wide standard. At the time of submittal.
for future phases, any request for 28 foot wide streets in the
long cul-de-sacs must be accompanied by a variance request.
7. A fire hydrant should be added in the area of Lots 44/45.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0.580 • (303) 221-6750
0
8. The City Forester is concerned about the four foot wide.
parkway strip along Boardwalk Drive. This does not leave much
room for trees and may impact the sidewalk and curb over the
long term. In addition, the Public Service Company is
concerned about street trees within four feet of an
underground gas line. It is suggested that street trees be
located behind the sidewalk, since there appears to be
adequate area for proper separation from Public Service.
Another possible solution would be to widen the parkway strip
to 10 feet for proper clearance for street trees.
9. The landscaping along the southwest boundary along Mail Creek
should be as naturalistic as possible. Native trees and
shrubs should be dominant in this area.
10. Please provide a schematic of the "Miramont" fencing.
11. At the openings of the two cul-de-sacs, are there plans for a
concrete path or is this a greenbelt only?
12. The landscape plan does not clearly indicate where each of the
grasses (native, ornamental, sod) occur. Please specify.
13. The issue of access along the ditch company road is not fully
resolved. Is there permission from Shawn Hoff for future
residents to access this area? What is the status?
14. The Final Landscape Plan is labeled sheet 1 of 1. Is there a
Site Plan with vicinity map, legal description, signature
blocks, setback information, fencing, etc.?
15. The Planning and Zoning Board may make additional comments at
the June 29, 1992 continued meeting.
This concludes Staff comments at this time. Please note the
following deadlines for the July 27, 1992 P & Z hearing:
Plan revisions are due Thursday, July 2, 1992.
P.M.T.°s, renderings, 10 prints are due July 20, 1992..
Final mylars, site and landscape covenants, development
agreement* are due Thursday July 23, 1992.
* If the development agreement is not signed by the time of the
public hearing, then the Final Approval may be Conditioned on
execution of the development agreement prior to the second monthly
meeting of the P & Z Board following the meeting at which the
P.U.D. was conditionally approved. If not so executed, the
developer, at said subsequent monthly meeting, may apply to the
Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such
extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with
respect to said P.U.D. final plan certain specific unique and
extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the
extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon
the owner or developer of such property and provided that such
extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good.
Please feel free to call if there are any questions or concerns
regarding these comments.
Sincerely: QQ
jL�
Ted Shepard
Senior Planner
xc: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner
Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer