Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE PUD, PHASE 2 (2ND FILING) - PRELIMINARY / FINAL - 49-95D - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)Poudre Fire Authority (Ron Gonzales) 49. How does this development deal with the addressing of the 9 lots that face north? Access to these lots is by a private drive/alley, which could be an issue. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90 day plan revision submittal time -frame mandated by the City. The 90 day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (July 26, 2000) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an opening on the agenda. Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. You may contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions about these comments or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss them. Sincerely, 4Stevejo&it� Project Planner cc: Engineering Stormwater Zoning Parks Planning Traffic Operations Transportation Planning Technical Services Natural Resources J. D. Padilla TST-Engineers— Project File #49-95B 37. A detailed grading plan is needed. All that has been submitted to date is an overlot grading plan, which is not sufficient. Natural Resources (Kim Kreimeyer) 38. City staff had said that architectural specifications and visual simulations for the homes along the ridge must be submitted for review. They were not provided with this re -submittal on June 23rd. Technically, the re -submittal was incomplete. 39. A detail of the proposed retaining wall along the ridgeline, showing visual impacts to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area, must be submitted for review. 40. What breaks up the homes along the ridgeline? 41. Are there designated building envelopes and are the buildings set back from the ridgeline? 42. What keeps the homes from being right on the edge of the ridgeline? 43. Ridgeline protection does not appear to be met with this development plan. A coordination meeting is necessary, to include the Natural Resources Department, the Planning Department, the consultants, and the owner/developer. 44. A mitigation plan for the wetlands that are to be disturbed is needed 45. Proof of compliance from the Army Corps of Engineers is needed. 46. This development proposal does not meet All Development Criterion A-2.3 - Natural Features in the LDGS. Transportation Planning (Kathleen Reavis) 47. 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? 48. 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. of this phase). 23. The next re -submittal will .hopefully constitute a full submittal of the.project. If it is determined to be complete then a 4-week turnaround cycle to the next Wednesday morning staff review for this project will be done. Engineering (Marc Virata) 24. "Phase II" is not as clear a term as "Filing Two" for this development proposal. It is being recommended that the title of the project plans be changed. 25. Add the water and sanitary sewer districts and the ditch company signature blocks to the subdivision plat. 26. Add the missing street names to the subdivision plat. 27. The subdivision plat still has lots of little problems that must be cleaned up. 28. A utility coordination meeting, to definitely include the Fort Collins -Loveland Water and South Fort Collins Sanitation Districts, should be held as soon as possible. Marc of the Engineering Department will help schedule this meeting. 29. Driveway cuts are needed in the 2 cul-de-sacs to get to the private drive (Tract 4 — Alley) that serves the 9 lots facing north (Lots 4 — 12). Stormwater (Basil Hamdan) 30. The grading plan needs more detail. 31. This development cannot drain into the Trilby Lateral irrigation ditch. 32. The off -site water quality pond is not yet designed. 33. This development cannot dump water into the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area without some water quality or detention. The water cannot just be dumped into the gullies without erosion control, water quality, or detention. The water must be intercepted, treated, and detained. 34. Do Lots 40 and 41 encroach into an existing drainage easement in Phase I? 35. Lots of design is missing, such as for the outfalls, swales, and water quality ponds. 36. A berm is needed on the north side of lots 34 — 40 to keep them from being flooded by upstream lots. ri overlook of the -Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. 12. A Notary Public signature block is needed on the Site Plan to notarize the Owner's Certification and signature. 13. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian trail from this development to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area must be constructed of concrete, for handicapped accessibility reasons, and the developer is responsible for the construction of the trail on -site from a roadway to the property line. This is consistent with the trail in Phase I. 14. What is the maximum height of the proposed homes? This is not identified on any of the plans. 15. Is this not a PUD being reviewed under the LDGS? Why has it been "justified" by the Principals and Policies in the City Plan, which is the LUC? It was the developer's choice to go LDGS. This is a repeat question/comment. 16. What is the nature of the proposed street lighting? Phase I requested, and was granted, diminished lighting in some parts of that development. Does this developer intend to make the same request or will the standard City street Y.• lighting be used? This is a repeat question. 17. The Residential Uses Point Chart 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. 18. 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. 19. The development request could be in jeopardy, based on points achieved on the Residential Uses Point Chart, if the aforementioned points cannot be verified. 20. The City bicycle/pedestrian trail in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area, south of this property, should be shown on the plans. 21. Why are portions of Lots 40 — 42, and the cul-de-sac serving them, shown as being outside of the property boundary for this development? 22. To protect the ridgeline, and views to and from this development, there should be no more than 6 lots in a row and a minimum of a 50' gap between them (similar to the 6 unit townhome buildings in Phase One and the original submittal B. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Red -lined copies of plans and reports, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Donald, at 416-2053, if you have questions about his comments. 9. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company stated that he has no problems regarding this development proposal. 10. The Technical Services Department (Mapping & Drafting) offered the following comments: . a. Some of the street names are missing on the subdivision plat. b. Parts of Lots 40, 41, and 42 and the cul-de-sac serving them are outside of the subdivision plat for this development. This cannot occur. They must be within the plat. C. It is unclear what the locations of the easements recorded by Reception No. 97006003 are. d. The easterly cul-de-sac (unnamed) encroaches into the "old" Harmony Road right-of-way. e. The subdivision plat boundary closes OK. The legal description matches the plat. f. Please see Marc Virata's comments on this project regarding the subdivision plat. Marc is the City's engineer that is reviewing Harmony Ridge. Please contact the Technical Services Department, at 221-6588, if you have questions about these comments. The following general concerns were discussed at the Staff Review Meeting on July 19, 2000: Planning 11. The Site Plan and Landscape Plan do not show a retaining wall along the southerly portion of the property that apparently is shown on the grading plan. Information is needed regarding this wall. If the grading of the site is to be substantially altered, how will the proposal meet All Development Criterion A-2.3 — Natural Features in the LDGS? This deals with a development plan adapting well to physical characteristics of the site and minimizing the disturbance of topography. This is especially critical because of the property's proximity to and 6. Kim Kreimeyer, the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following comments: a. The grading and retaining wall as shown on the latest grading plan does not meet the intent of the LDGS All Development Criterion A-2.3 — Natural Features. b. This site is visually sensitive due to its location to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. During review of Harmony Ridge, Phase I this issue was of such high concern that a landscape architectural firm was hired to create architectural drawings and visual simulations for this area. Copies of these will be made available for your review if you do not already have copies of them. In a meeting with Tom Shoemaker and Steve Olt, it was expressed that architectural specifications and visual simulations would be required for this project. The applicant has not yet submitted these items for review by the City. C. Some type of water quality will be required for this project due to the potential impact to existing wetlands. d. The City of Fort Collins requires a Wetland Mitigation Plan and Report for this project. e. Due to the impact to an existing wetland, proof of compliance with all applicable Federal Regulations must be submitted to the City Natural Resources Department for review. e. The layout shown on the Site Plan does not meet the intent of the LDGS or that of the Natural Resources Department. The lots should be broken into maximum 6 lot masses, with a minimum of a 50' open area between the masses of buildings. This scheme would naturally fit into the landscape better than a straight row of lots (and houses) without any breaks. f. List native grass species on the Landscape Plan. Please contact Kim, at 221-6641, if you have questions about these comments. 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, if you have questions about his comments. b. Related to Plant Note #17 on the Landscape Plan, is there a need for temporary irrigation to the seeded areas for the first 1 to 2 years to establish the native grasses? C. Based on the information on the Site Plan, the type of residential being proposed in this development is confusing.. Are these single family, patio homes, or townhomes? Each term is used on the Site Plan. Since the plan does not indicate setbacks, it is not known if these are "attached" single family or "detached" single family. It is being suggested that the applicant refer to the dwelling units by a legally defined term, such as attached or detached single family. d. The Site Plan must include setback information. This is a repeat comment. If setbacks are not indicated on the Site Plan, then a statement that the setbacks will conform to the LMN Zoning District will clarify this issue. Since this is a PUD being reviewed under the LDGS, if the setbacks are not indicated on the Site Plan then the standards of the underlying zoning (LMN) will apply. If the applicant wants something different, the Site Plan must indicate this; otherwise, the LMN standards will apply. Please contact the Jenny or Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. The applicant needs to show 6' wide bicycle lanes and a 5' wide sidewalk on Fromme Prairie Way, plus show details or clearer bicycle/pedestrian connections from the cul-de-sacs to Fromme Prairie Way. (Planning question: Is the Emergency Access Only roadway, as shown on the Site and Landscape Plans, named Fromme Prairie Way?) 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. These are both repeat comments. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments. Commi' 'ty Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins July 26, 2000 Jim Sell Design c/o Vaughn Furness 153 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Vaughn, Staff Has reviewed your documentation for revisions to the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase II — Preliminary & Final that were submitted to the City on June 23, 2000, and would like to offer the following comments: 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 adopted Land Use Code (LUC). This combined preliminary & final request will go before the Planning and Zoning Board for all decisions. 2. The revised Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase II — Preliminary & Final plan (submitted on 6/23/00) proposes 63 patio homes (small lot single family) 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 3.98 dwelling units per acre, which also is in conformance with the approved Amended ODP. 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. 4. Jenny Nuckols and Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. The topography lines should be removed from the Site and Landscape Plans because they are Final PUD plans that will be recorded and filed. This is a repeat comment. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020