HomeMy WebLinkAboutFAHRENBRUCH LEISURE VILLAGE - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-08-13711
Page 2
Planning and Zoning S'w f
Leisure Village PUD
17 May 1977
under the old PUD ordinance for the owner to provide such an instrument
for his property. This, however, is not the intention. Having discussed
the problems of parking and maintanence with another owner in the area
it has been decided to initiate a Homeowners agreement for this area
that would be charged with the responsibilities of establishing miantan-
ence standards and schedules and providing tools fo implementing those
standards and schedules. The Homeowners association will be backed with
intan agreement giving the individual owners right to lien against
those owners within this proposed replat and not living up to their
responsibilities These documents are presently being studied and pre-
pared by the owner's legal counsel and will be presented prior to City
Council review.
In consideration of the s_qLqV719>rea it was the desire of the developer
to turn his particul nward as much as possible and locate
parking and auto circulation to the north in order to minimize pedes-
trian/auto c flict on his property. Location of parking north also
helps toCmaintsne openness between proposed structures and existing
structures eto his property lines. Following is a list of advantages
this particular plan presents:
The canted buildings serve to create openness and recreation areas
and reduce monotony of development in straight lines. Canted plans
also make direct overlook into adjoining property and buildings
more dificult.
Increased density provides for more economical development making
more housing available at lower cost.
Irregular plan creates nitches of green space about parking areas
which serves to soften the effects of paving. Traffic is also
naturally slowed reducing hazards to playing children.
Landscaping is utilized further to define open areas and provide
focal points and scale to the development.
A minimum 22.00 foot set back is maintaned between proposed building
envelopes and RL zoning to the south and 35.00 feet to the west.
Maintanenc:e of the area will be provided for in the creation of
a Homeowners Association backed by maintanence tied to right of
lien and between property owners.
Active open and open space have been provided that meet more than
minimum standards as set forth in current PUD Ordinances.
Parking is most efficient in terms of total paved areas require
and provides open space between proposed building envelopes and
existing structures.
Irregular plan and seperation of buildings on this plan provide
ample room for firemen to work around structures and reduce chances
of fire spread from one building to the other.
Further examination of existing conditions show that utilities are
available from the north of the property. Easements will be dedicated
Page 3
Planning and Zoning -Laff
Leisure Village PUD
17 May 1977
on the final plat base upon final engineering requirements for service
to the structures.
At present it is the intent of the developer to provide building enve-
lopes on each lot as indicated on the site plan and landscape plan.
This provides what is felt to be the most flexability of design for the
structures. Building envelopes will be indicated on the final plat for
recording purposes. All otherarea around the envelopes will be dedicated
public access easement to meet open space requirements. Parking will
be dedicated out of properties to the Homeowners Association.
At present it is understood that there is n�equiemenetr detention
or retention of water on the site for this pte is basically
flat and overlot drainage will be establised based on existing conditions
and in accordance with accepted standards.
The project in terms of fire protection has been discussed with the City
fire prevention people and has been provided for. Mr. Don Hisam of the
Fire Prevention Bureau has indicated that a back up space as indicated
on the drawings, protected from parking with knock down bumbers would
be acceptable., This space could then furthe•serve as a hard surface play
area.
Building envelopes have been designed around an 18.00 foot wide by
45.00 foot deep module. It is believed htat this basis should provide
for unit off sets within the envelope as well as the creation of some
screened exterior private space for individual units.
It is hoped that these comments have been helpful in your evaluation
of this project and have served to explain the approach and reasoning
utilized in the development of this submittal.
Cordially,
Robert Sutter, A.I.A
CI -I Y OF FORI COLLINS P.O.BOX 469, 311 UNITED BANK BLDG.. FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 EXT. 276
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Lanspery, Acting City Manager
FROM: Art March, Jr., City Attorney
DATE: August 10, 1977
RE: Fahrenbruch Leisure Village
I have investigated the status of the homeowners'
association (club) for Fahrenbruch Leisure Village, Third
Filing. Attached hereto is a copy of the Declaration of
Protective Covenants for this subdivision which created the
homeowners' association. At the last meeting of the City
Council it was indicated that these covenants were not valid
because they were not signed and the purported declarant
(Stanford 'Triplex Home Owners Association, Inc.) was not the
owner of the lands made subject to the covenants. My investi-
gation indicates that this was based on a misunderstanding
with the title company and, in fact, this corporation was
the owner of the property at the time the covenants were
filed and the covenants were signed by the proper officers
on behalf of such owner. I further find that the association
has been declared defunct by the Secretary of State because
of failure to file annual reports; however, this can be
corrected.
In view of this it is my opinion that the covenants
relating to the homeowners' association and the common
properties can be enforced by the owners of property in the
subdivision. Since the City is not a party to the covenants
and the covenants do not purport to run for the benefit of
the City, :it would not be possible for the City to enforce
the covenants but it is feasible for owners of property to
reactivate the corporation and to enforce the provisions of
the covenants.
AEMjr:11
Enclosure
100% Recycled Bond
STEWART&OSSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
April 6, 1994
Mr. Glen Schlueter
Storm Water Utility
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Glen:
EN%N`0-:AIN 3
DEPARTMENT
COPY
Dinar Approved Repo!
13
I have prepared an erosion control plan and calculations for the proposed
development of Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Leisure Village, Fourth Filing.
This is an infill project of lots that were approved in 1978, The site
is now covered with natural vegetation, and it is located in a moderate rainfall
and wind erodibility zone.
The following construction schedule is proposed so that erosion control
will be provided. First, the three foundations will be excavated and grading
of the swales along the west, south and east sides will be done. The
installation of the concrete foundations will immediately follow the excavation.
Gravel roadbase will then be placed in the excavated parking lot and driveway.
Straw bale barriers in the east Swale and a silt fence along the east property
line should be installed immediately following the Swale grading. Seeding
and straw mulching will be done in the west and south portions of the site
which are out of the way of construction.
Wind erosion control will be adequately provided by the rainfall erosion
control procedures and by the trees, fences and buildings surrounding the site.
The attached plan shows the proposed construction and grading, along with
the erosion and sediment control procedures. Also attached are the erosion
control calculation sheets.
Sincerely,
Phillip I. Robinson, P.E. & L.S.
Vice President
jrr
enclosures
James H. Stewart
and Associates. Inc.
103 S. Meldrum Stree�
P.O. Box 429
Ft. Collins. CO 8C522
303i 482-9331
Fax 303/482-9382
l..
.
_
y
_
... �...
_,
'. r -
�-
,
` y
No Text
IMTES B., W.I�FIWA_RT
212
1% O. JIM, 1400
DecenOr 4, ;95'
Mr Gene Allen
Olreito- of Planning
00 Ha'1
Fort Collins, colv;ado 80521
Dear Mr Allen
"h,
iq tri ce,tify that on the 4th day of December, 1967,
L p,-%v-a
t,acei out ine
lateral drainage course
which
,C�'
1 it'
Qp "�" if, wve-
`rod* the low pOnt en
Stanford
j i o
a, re ,c4 1
� , o f , Home Dove 1 oome"t , d-d
t h A -
lrqQ Is
''ns'U'a for the un )ff 'rim
said
, q t 1 ng 1 r " 1 1 1 C : 5n
d t a a
r d L m a , f R , m r :, `:he
Iles to ly
qi, Av,nup 4,v,
iren p it will tirio Nurth
d*ong
W
r ? q f . w 6
, 1 i r V it an el , tj 17 QQ1
to an
n lh-
ipert on a' Ornkp Road and
May,
h-eaqv
nn,d :&vp-t int, Yark%ood
ME
1 nr;
- i t , on istiLr a iu ! d no req,
i rec to
1141 '010M
74plat've wraid he MpprLX)MdteIy
j
!; 7-am j Fd,tn&� oop
or &zjnfqN
p
t 1 1 q
r 0 1 02 1 1 1 - ; a : 1 0 a t
V d ;
j
I -
4 1 C r e , d 1 d ; r c rl I i
n a f-
e,
3 re
to a-: epr°OOMP,y 700
1 e; t
We Vr_v t the I,Ovp n tateMpal is jat*Stjctcry Or your pur-
pu4 v, i), f atj Vioqp infrria;:On is needed please advise
Very truly yours,
James H. Stewart, P. E.
j a f
cc: Garth Rogers
NO Fahrenbruch
Fort Collins, Colorado
December 5, 1961
Leisure 01189c, I''C,
Fort c0173-ns, COiorado
Attent,ion: Mr. Jaok FahrenL rush
Pr-si dLPt
Dear Mr. F6hrenhruch:
This li;t_tor is to serve as our agreement that we will
from Leisure V111age Third Filing to drain
to S trac han Company through exl't v"g
77 C nctru erd as tndiwaWi i hr
,.� �. ?6,7, S wart. wh-ien would l ma a OIL"? C' ,
Lai .-'arltxaoa. i0c::ted _ _ n0
It r.", tl,ma as some: or all of our property is
work together to provide replacement
ra= magn wager will be property handled.
s,_n of extra ditching ryuired for the above
F et_lvn,ej ton ry oryinaqe shall he at the expense of
Lpj; 1`" V111111, ACC. Thn JStS involved with rePlacemyn'
fa..:1:i110, 4 r �c share- on x pro'raf.a haFi , based Can bpneflt
peter_.._., f;. .... Q,., r._'ll.t v.
Yours very truly,
THE STRACHAN COMPANY
By
U
Pb
(' l�Odd
e%/ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
DESIGNERS - B U I t P E R S • Lk 9-344-1 7.3485 B-R-AU4 R-O-A-'D 6-OUDE-J. CC)LORADO
6/G/6c
r. Roy "ingnan
malty �n ':ineer
'1:; -, of sG. Collire,
�. Co111r Colo. �GSLl
-!r - r :nre_ tr ook leisure Vi 11a.e - 3r6 ling
Lots 1 thrU. ;', e ^onion of
-'ra(, Mn,ct =z.
"ccr r. P,in,rn«n:
i i_s to .+''-vis th a i;he di rice bets een rr)a-nhole „7 and
1^ ;', i s rr.v9 e ,uo' 15?.';7 fc"t• '_'t,e in.tert. c!_Lier Sion
of r le it ::e
6 �l .P l':itnr• t.^e t� liy'f" of I,cJ -Are Drivc and th--t all. lho-an.(h-y
o
f t
YOUrB V(-,I' trul_g,
01I
, .—: L I , j :'Z; .
Uh/ of, it,
V't'r �
No Text
IJTHE
p r3� W-i RCHIT CCT
Suite 141 No. 1 Drake Perk 333 W. Drake Rd. Fort Collins, Colorado SM21 Ph. 1303�A93-SI98
17 May 1977
Planning and Zoning Staff
City of Fort Collins
City Hall
300 Weat LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Gentlemen:
�TH1ssletter is intended to provide supportive information and criteria
for the drawings included and to be presented to the City for the re -
plat of Fahrenbruch Liesure Village Fourth Filing. The present zoning
on the property is R ns s we understand from the City Planning Staff
the development will be judged under the old PUD Ordinance that it was
originally filed.
The prUp�'s proposed contains 90,166 S.F.+ or 2.07 a.+ and under the
RP zone allows 12 units per acre density. This submission proposes 24
units for the property in 4, 5, and 6 unit structures resulting in a
density of 11.59 units per acre. Present development of Liesure Village
less the submittal ro erty is at 11.38 units per acre. The increase in
density propose ose n this property would increase the overall
eL f Leisure Village to 11.41 units per acre; a net increase to the
Leisure Village Development of .03 Units per acre.
Based on what could be an allowable density shift a total of 43 additional
units could be developed on the submittal property and still remain
within the overall allowable density of 12 units per acre for the Leisure
Village Development. It is realized that this type of development could
raise questions as to precedence as well as practicality. However, it
must be pointed out that a density oLperhaps up to 30 units could have
been developed and still remain otI17>11owed Densities and economical
factors. Twenty-four units were chosen since analysis :of the site in-
dicated this density best represented the feeling the owners wanted
represented in this portion of the Development.
We must point out though that as 43 units would be impractical so is the
present density proposed and accepted by the City in terms of to little
development efficiency. The presently accepted plan allows for the dev-
elopment of 16 units for a density on the submital property of 7.7
units per acre.This puts an additional burden on this developer to sup-
port more open space per unit than any of the previously developed
property. The 24 units proposed more closely approximates what has been
previously accepted forvelopers of the prQper,ty in the past
and is well within accepted allowable standards.
Presently there is no effective Homeowners Association or system of
maintanence for the area. As we understand there would be no requirement