HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE PUD, PHASE 2 (2ND FILING) - PRELIMINARY / FINAL - 49-95D - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (5)Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 10
38. How does this development provide a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Fossil Creek trail
in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area? The original ODP showed a future connection.
A connection is needed, otherwise an "informal" path will evolve, causing erosion. This
could be a challenge. One possible solution is to construct a small bridge over the Trilby
Lateral irrigation ditch. This should be coordinated with the City Parks Planning
Department pertaining to possible joint funding. The ditch company must be involved, also.
Response:
The connection has been provided from the Skunkbush Drive cul-de-sac to the Fromme
Prairie parking area via a 10' wide concrete sidewalk.
39. Storm drainage cannot occur across sidewalks and pedestrian ramps.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
40. Fromme Prairie Way must be "public access ", not just emergency access.
Response:
A note has been added to the site and landscape plans.
If you have any additional comments or questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
JIM SELL DESIGN
Vaughn Furness
Senior Land Planner
cc: File
E:TROIEC FILES4.AN["2VUDOCSWARMONYRmfiE2-W..RW.RESPONSE.DOC
Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 9
31. The off -site water quality pond is not yet designed.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
32. The required erosion control plan is not done.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
Natural Resources (Doug Moore)
33. Natural Resources has concerns about the massing of the proposed buildings. The views
from the City trail in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area may be significantly
compromised because of the buildings.
Response:
The site plan, landscape plan and associated lotting and retaining wall have been
modified to reduce the visual impact from Fromme Prairie.
34. The visual impact of the proposed retaining walls is of concern.
Response:
See note #33.
35. The City trail in the natural area must be shown on the plans.
Response:
The trail has been indicated on the site and landscape plans.
36. This development proposal as submitted does not meet All Development Criterion A-2.3 -
Natural Features in the LDGS.
Response:
See note #33.
Transportation Planning (Kathleen Reavis)
37. Show the sidewalk along Fromme Prairie Way and how the cul-de-sacs connect to this
sidewalk. How will the bollards and connecting sidewalks work? More,. detail is needed.
Response:
The connection has been shown, on the site and landscape plans.
4
E WROIEC MLES%ANDNIMViOOCSWARMONYRMGMb .RV RESPONSE.DOC
Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 8
23. The grading plan is confusing. Note 22 is not acceptable.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
24. The street width transition at the entry to this phase of development needs to be discussed.
s
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
25. A high point needs to be established in the cul-de-sacs. This must comply with standard
detail D-5.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
26. A 40' outside radius must be provided in the cul-de-sacs.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
27. The streets are too steep.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
28. Is a sub -drain system being'proposed?
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
Stormwater (Glen Schlueter)
29. The condition of the grading plan is a big issue. It still needs more detail.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
30. This development cannot drain into the Trilby Lateral irrigation ditch.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans
=a
E:\PROJ=FILESUAND\IMVUOCSWA ONYRIDGE:-PF.RV3.RESPONSE.DOC
Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 7
Engineering (Marc Virata)
16. "Phase II" is not as clear a term as "Filing Two "for this developmentproposal. It is being
recommended that the title of the project plans be changed.
Response:
The plans are now noted as `2"" Filing'.
17. The property owner still owes Poudre Valley REA for the undergrounding of the power line
along the north side of the property.
Response:
Noted.
18. Tract 4 is still being shown as an alley. It must be a private drive.
Response:
It is now shown as private drive on the plans.
19. The necessary easements from the Trilby Lateral Ditch Company and the water & sanitary
sewer districts must be provided to the City and found to be acceptable before this item can
be scheduled for a public hearing.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
20. There appears to be street right-of-way on the top of "exclusive" easements. This cannot
occur.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
21. Additional easement dedication may be needed along "old" Harmony Road.
Response:
See TST's responses/plans.
22. Are the streets to be public or private?
Response:
Streets other than those indicated as private on the plans, are to be public.
L,PROJECT FILES AND\1"2VIDOCSINARMONYRR)GE2-PF.RV.RESMNSE.D
Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 6
The following general concerns were discussed at the Staff Review Meeting on December 27, 2000:
Planning
12. Planning is going to take this item to Growth Management Lead Team on January2, 2001 to
discuss the outstanding issues regarding this development proposal.
Response:
Noted.
13. The Residential Uses Point Chart in the LDGS is showing 20 points for being within 3, 000'
of a major employment center. Is this the 2 schools (has this been substantiated?) or is it
something else? This is a repeat question.
Response:
Major employment center shall mean any building, any office or business park, or any
combination of two or more adjacent shopping centers, which provided employment
for more than one hundred (100) full-time employees during a single eight -hour shift.
Johnson — 67 teachers and staff, Weber — 146 teachers and staff for a total of 213
employees.
14. The Residential Uses Point Chart is showing 10 points for providing adequate, safe, and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections to... ? There are 3 criteria available. If the
intent is to make a connection to an existing adjacent bicycle trail (in the Cathy Fromme
Prairie) then the trail connection must be fully committed to and shown on the plans. This is
a repeat comment
Response:
A 10 wide trail connection has been shown from the Skunkbush Drive cul-de-sac to the
Cathy Fromme Prairie parking lot trail. This is to comply with the LDGS Point Chart.
15. The development request could be in jeopardy, based on points achieved on the Residential
Uses Point Chart, if the aforementioned points cannot be verified.
Response:
See note 13 above.
E\PROIECT FILESLLAND\199MDOC$\H ONYRI U-PF,RV RESPONSE.DOC
Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 5
b. For additional comments please see Marc Virata's comments on this project
regarding the subdivision plat. Marc is the City's engineer that is reviewing
Harmony Ridge, Phase II.
Response:
See TST's responses.
Please contact the Technical Services Department, at 221-6588, ifyou have questions about
these comments.
10. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments:
a. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property and posted
with a minimum of 6 " high numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronze
numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).
Response: .
Noted.
b. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved
roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,500 gallons of water per
minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater than
300' from afire hydrant.
Response:
See TST's utility plans.
C. Street names must be reviewed and verified by LETA prior to beingput into service.
Response:
Noted.
11. Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding
this development proposal.
EAPROJEC FMES AND11992V1DOCSViAR ONYRIOCE F.RW.RESPONSE.DOC
Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 4
C. Wetland mitigation plan, See attached letter and plans from Water Quality
Technology. This letter and plans were a last minute addition. Please note that
the current site and landscape plans do not identify the new mitigation area. All
final plans will be revised to show mitigation area.
d. Federal regulations compliance — see attached letter from the Army Corp of
Engineers stating that these are not jurisdictional wetlands.
e. The retaining walls have been modified to further comply with LDGS All
development Criteria A-2.3.
f. See TST Consulting Engineers response.
g. See revised plan for relotting of area adjacent to Cathy Fromme Prairie.
h. The plan has tried to incorporate all of the Natural Resources suggested `design
techniques' with the revised plan.
7. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering Department is
attached to this comment letter. Red -lined copies of plans, with additional comments, are
being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, ifyou have questions
about his comments.
Response:
1. The `Phase II' notation on the title block has been changed to `2"d Filing'.
2. noted
3. The `alley' has been changed to a `Private Drive'.
4. Streets other than those indicated on the plan are to be public streets.
5. see TST's responses.
6. see TST's responses.
8. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to
this comment letter. Red -lined copies ofplans and reports, with additional comments, are
being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Glen Schlueter, at 224-6065, if you have
questions about Stormwater's comments.
Response:
See TST's responses.
9. The Technical Services Department (Mapping & Drafting) offered the following comments:
a. The subdivision plat boundary does not match the legal description, by several
courses.
Response:
See TST's responses.
E TROJECIFILESLLAND\1992V1DDCSWARMON IDM.ff.RV RESPONSE.DOC
Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 3
5. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following
comments:
a. Show more detail regarding bicycle/pedestrian connections from the internal cul-de-
sacs to Fromme Prairie Way, including ADA ramps and bollards. Make sure that the
pedestrian ramps do not conflict with drainage inlets.
Response:
The bicycle pedestrian connection from the cul-de-sac to Fromme Prairie Way have
been shown with bollard and ramp location, and do not conflict with drainage inlets.
b. The applicant needs to show a possible location for a bicycle/pedestrian connection
down to the City trail in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. This still needs to
be pursued, with coordination between the applicant, Transportation Planning,
Parks Planning, and Natural Resources.
Response:
A connection has been shown on the Site and Landscape Plans from the Skunkbush
Drive cul-de-sac to the Fromme Prairie Natural Area parking lot. The connection is a
ten foot wide concrete trail, shown as a hatch pattern on the plans.
C. The Site Plan needs to identify Fromme Prairie Way, and not just as an emergency
access. It needs to be a "public" access easement to provide access to the City's
parking lot and trailhead.
Response:
Noted on the plans
d. Additional comments are on a red -lined Site Plan that is being forwarded to the
applicant.
Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments.
6. A Revision Comment Sheet has not yet been received from the City's Natural Resources
Department. Please contact Doug Moore, at 224-6143, for information regarding their
concerns and comments.
Response:
a. New photo simulations have been produced.
b. The trail that runs through Cathy Fromme Prairie, adjacent to the site has been
shown on the site and landscape plans
E IPROIEC PLLES\LAND\I992VDOCS\NARMON RIOOE2-PF.RV2.RESPONSE. DOC
Mr. Steve Olt
March 21, 2001
Page 2
4. Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a. Project Note 44 on the Site Plan states that the building setbacks will conform to the
LAM Zoning District regulations. The building envelopes do no reflect this on all
lots; therefore, they should be removed from the Site and Landscape Plans. The
envelopes are redundant.
Response:
Building envelopes have been removed from the site plan.
b. Related to Plant Note 411 on the Landscape Plan, please add "... the valuation of the
materials and installations prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy".
Response:
The requested note has been added to the landscape plan.
C. Project Note 43 on the Site Plan states that the letter "R " denotes curb ramps. There
are no "R's" shown at the ramp locations on this plan. Please add them in the
appropriate locations.
Response:
"R's" have been added at the appropriate locations on the plan.
d. Are the building elevations that were submitled for the duplexes? Elevations should
be submitted on standard blueprint size sheets, being 24 " x 36 ".
Response:
The correct size plan sheets have been submitted with the resubmittal.
e. Remove the floor plans from the Building Elevation sheets.
Response:
The floor plans have been removed from the Building Elevations sheets.
f. Note the building heights on the Building Elevation sheets.
Response:
The building heights have been added to the Building Elevation sheets.
Please contact the Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments.
4
E:t ROIECT MLESLLAND\1"2VDOCS\HARMONYRIDGM3 F.RV.RESPONSE.DOC
March 21, 2001
Mr. Steve Olt
Project Planner
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Harmony Ridge PUD, Filing 2 —Response to Staff Review Comments
Dear Steve:
l.•unleaJx. Lxdn7rAum
ld��iurniup
/•hrirvnnrartri/f Cunuuunity Pluwinq
City Staff has reviewed our documentation for revisions to the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase II —
Preliminary & Final that were submitted to the City on December 4, 2000. Below, please find the
responses to your comments per your letter, dated January 19, 2001.
1. Due to the timing of the submittal date for this final PUD request, Harmony Ridge PUD,
Phase II — Preliminary & Final is being reviewed against the Land Development Guidance
System (LDGS), which is in the process of being replaced by the City s adoptedLand Use
Code (LUC). This combined preliminary & final request will go before the Planning and
Zoning Board for all decisions.
Response:
Noted.
2. The revised Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase II — Preliminary & Final plan (submitted on
12104100) proposes 48 patio homes (small lot single family) and 16 duplex dwelling units on
15.81 acres. This is in conformance with the approved Minor Amendment to the Harmony
Ridge Overall Development Plan (ODP). The gross residential density would be 4.05
dwelling units per acre (64 du's / 15.81 acres), which also is in conformance with the
approved Amended ODP.
Response:
Please see revised site plan for changes to plan and density calculations.
3. A copy of the comments received from Terry Farrill of the Fort Collins - Loveland Water
District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District is attached to this letter. Please
contact Terry, at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have questions about his comments.
Response:
No trees will be located within 10 feet of District facilities, and have been shown as such
on the Landscape Plan. Other comments have been addressed by TST Consulting
Engineers.
EVROJECT FRESILAND\I992VDOCSViARMONYRIDOE2 PF.RV2.RESMNSE.DOC