Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAGE CREEK - PDP - 25-98B - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSA COM@@ o urban design, inc. H. Natural Resources indicated "see redlines" 1. A number of redline sheets were provided on Friday. However, the sources of the redlines were not identified on the plans. The attached revisions address the redlines to the extent practical. Please call if you need further information. Also please confirm the administrative hearing date of February 28, 2000. Sincerely, Eldon Ward, President Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Jim Postle, the James Company Les Crawford, The Sear -Brown Group U M@@P@ urban design, inc. 3. The ornamental trees in the tree lawns around the traffic circle do not interfere with site distance as described in the latest comments. 4. There is a band of color, patterned concrete around the outside circumference of the island in the traffic circle. 5. The fencing note has been added as requested. 6. Required improvements to adjacent arterials have been determined (approximately eight months ago) by Engineering. 7. The phasing plan indicates the general sequence of improvements to internal streets. If needed, further clarification of phased infrastructure improvements can be included in the Development Agreement. 8. As discussed on Friday, Sage Creek's portion of Corbett Drive will be constructed with the next portion of construction begun after Phase 1; not prior to the Vt building permit as indicted in the written comments from Traffic Operations. C. Transportation Planning indicated "No Comment" D. Water/Wastewater indicated "No Comment" E. Poudre Fire Authority repeated two comments — regarding visibility of address numerals/letters, and fire lane markings that were addressed on the January 23`d PDP plans; and added a new comment regarding the numbering of Buildings and Units in Phase 2. Per my conversation with Ron Gonzales on February 7th, the re- numbering of townhome units in Phase 2 will be included on the Final Compliance Plans and Final Plat, not on the PDP and/or Preliminary Plat. F. Stormwater indicated "No Comment" G. Engineering comments: 1. The engineer for Harvest Park has indicated that the plan indicated is the approved site plan for Harvest Park. The applicant for Sage Creek has no control over further revisions that may have been made to the Harvest Park Plans; and is aware of none. 2. As noted on the PDP, no direct single family lot access is anticipated from Corbett Drive. The note — previously requested by Engineering — regarding possible future consideration of driveway permits for lots 11 and 12, has been revised. 3. Crosswalks are shown 20' back from the flowline of the traffic circle. 4. Walks at the townhome access on Corbett have been modified as requested. 5. The Phasing Plan has been revised as per our meeting on February 11`h Corbett will be included with next portion of construction begun after Phase 1. 6. The fence setback of 8' from the landscape parkway —as we discussed on Friday — has been noted. 7. Bridges and culvert structures and their phasing are noted on Sear -Brown's plans. 8. Sear -Brown is providing the requested cross sections of the 8' path. 9. As indicated above, landscaping around the traffic circle meets the criteria provided by Traffic Operations. February 15, 2000 Ronald G. Fuchs, Project Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Ron; Coil�Qo urban design, inc. 3555 Stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 FAX (970) 226-4196 E-mail: cityscap@frii.com FEB 1 5 2000 Attached are 5 copies of the Sage Creek PDP, revised as appropriate in response to the belated Staff Comments provided to the applicant on Friday, February 11th. At our meeting with Staff to discuss the December 23`d comments, Sear -Brown was told that —except for a few specific items that were to be coordinated directly with individual Staff members - remaining engineering and drainage issues were to be addressed with the Final Compliance Plans, and that no full PDP resubmittal was needed. Now we have received a number of comment sheets indicating that because civil plans were not resubmitted, Site and Landscape Plans were reviewed for civil content. Please be advised that civil requirements will be met on the Civil Engineer's plans; and the Site and Landscape Plans are not intended to take the place of the required Utility Plans. Site and Landscape Plans have been revised with responses to applicable comments as follows: A. Planning items: 1. A typical cross section showing the trail, berm, and general sanitary sewer location in the area immediately west of C.R.#9 has been added as requested to the PDP. 2. Sear -Brown is providing typical trail/bridge cross sections. As with all other cost sharing infrastructure, financial responsibilities for trails and pedestrian bridges will be addressed in the development agreement. 3. Tract designations have been checked with the Preliminary Plat, and will be re -checked with the Final Plat. 4. Phase lines have been adjusted per our meeting on Friday. 5. Landscape notes have been revised as we discussed on Friday. 6. Cross walk locations at the traffic circle have been resolved. 7. The landscaping at the traffic circle does not interfere with site distance requirements as defined by Traffic Operations. 8. Sidewalk ramps on Corbett have been modified as requested by Engineering. 9. Fencing notes have been added as requested. We have also added a note that the fence design will meet the L.U.C. Supplement #7 criteria. 10. Labels on street trees along the minor arterials have been corrected. 11. Entries to both Units 71 and 101 are within 200' of street sidewalks. B. Traffic Operations', comments: 1. Curb and gutter will be installed using the civil Utility Plans, not the PDP Site Plan. We have shown the geometry provided by Sear -Brown. 2. The east crosswalk at the traffic circle has been corrected.