Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRIDGES PUD REPLAT TRACT 1 - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-10-30MEETING DATE: January 27, 198F ITEM : The Bridges PUD - Amendment APPLICANT: Bruce Miller, C/O Glen Magee, Junge Reich Magee, 4141 Aranahoe Avenue, Boulder, CO 80303 LAND USE DATA: Changes to an approved PUD including a reduction in number of units from 87 to 83 and transfer of nine units from the south to the north side of the canal. COMMENTS: 1. There may be existing utility easements conflicting with new building placement. Please work closely with Water and Sewer, Light and Power, and other affected utilities. -water and sewer easements -electrical line placement -transformer/vault locations 2. The fire authority requests that the 24 foot streets be posted no parking on both sides. Other emergency access requirements still apply. 3. Handicapped accessible units will need to be provided. The square footage of the buildings may require rating buildings, separations, etc. 4. With a PUD amendment the City can require updating of design standards for streets including potential off -site street improvements. Other engineering comments include: -please provide a revised storm drainage report with a submittal -there is a need for a 40 foot minimum setback from a public street to a parking space -the City requests you keep in force the access easement along the canal 5. The traffic engineer will need additional information than is provided in the traffic study. This information should include the existing condition of the street. 6. For your information, Prospect Road improvements are a capital improvement project which is not funded at this time. 7. Planning comments include: -Information needs to be provided regarding how the 12 unit building relates to adjacent land uses -The garages and trash enclosures should be located in a way to avoid sight -distance problems and to provide an attractive streetscape. Setback of garages from the private drive need to be either zero feet or an 18 foot minimum -The active open space. to the south needs to be dedicated as such, 8. Additional stree-t oversizing funds may not be available. CONCEF--UAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS MEETING DATE: February 3, 1986 ITEM : Bridaps P n- Amendment APPLICANT: Bruce Miller, c/o Glen Magee, Junge, Reich and Magee, Architects, 4141 Arapahoe Road, Boulder, CO 80302 LAND USE DATA: Proposal to increase the number of units on the approved plan from 87 to 103 with additional buildings and COMMENTS: accessways. 1. The Light and Power utility requests you work closely with them when moving across the canal. It will be difficult to provide services to some of the units with the garage placement shown. if gas is to be used, Public Service may have significant problems with this design. 2. The sewer connection to the south will necessitate adequate clearance from and between the buildings. 3. Fire authority comments are that this proposal will exceed the 660 foot dead-end access requirement; the 150 foot access requirement will have to be met; no parking areas must be signed. The authority may waive some of these requirements if you sprinkler the buildings. 4. With the amount of units proposed, 14 handicapped accessible and adaptable units will need to be provided. 5. Engineering comments include: the existing development agreement should cover improvements along your frontage; the traffic study will need to be revised in order to assess possible off -site improvements; the City will probably not require improvements to bridges on Prospect Road over the canals; and, please provide a revised storm drainage report. 6. Traffic engineering comments include: you will need to provide access to the west for the southernmost units; parking requirements are 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit; you need to emphasize traffic flow to the north and discourage the use of the accessways to the northeast; the street along the canal should be de-emphasized or eliminated. 7. Planning staff has concerns regarding the following: -the setback of the 2 112 story building was not considered adequate, -landscaping and access to the amenity will be important aspects of any revision, -general increase in intensity of the land use, -the multi -family buildings between the ditches may be questioned by the Planning and Zoning Board. 8. The administrative change for the approved five unit buildings is denied because: a. the storm sewer is not constructed as per utility plans and the SW corner of the garage for the proposed six-plex is over the existing storm sewer line, b. the proposed buildings extend beyond the existing lot line. 9. A neighborhood meeting will need to be held before this plan is submitted for review. The meeting will be held approximately three weeks after we receive the updated APO list for the area. A map is attached which shows the area to include on the list.