Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE PUD, PHASE 2 (2ND FILING) - PRELIMINARY / FINAL - 49-95D - CORRESPONDENCE -cc: Engineering Stormwater Zoning Parks Planning Traffic Operations Transportation Planning Natural Resources J. D. Padilla Leigh Whitehead & Associates Project File #49-956 1 51. Documentation for off -site easements in the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area is needed from Natural Resources. Natural Resources (Kim Kreimeyer) 52. The project needs to avoid the wetlands on -site. This could result in a loss of 8 dwelling units or more. No disturbance of wetlands is #1 priority, minimal disturbance and proper mitigation is #2 priority. Proof of compliance with the Corps of Engineers is required. 53. More landscaping is needed on the ridgeline along Lots 5 through 11. 54. The native grass mixes must be shown on the Landscape Plan and approved by Natural Resources. The timing of construction is critical. It is limited due to the wintering and feeding of raptors in the adjacent natural area. 55. This development proposal does not meet All Development Criterion A-2.3 Natural Features. 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 (February 24, 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, *teve Olt Project Planner 32. As private "streets", they must be improved to public street standards. 33. The outside, surface parking stalls will need a variance if the internal roadways are private or public "streets". 34. The street details on the utility plans do not reflect private drives. 35. There are lots of detail comments on the utility plans. 36. The subdivision plat needs the updated plat language. 37. Where is the trail connection to the existing City trail? 38. The proposed Type III barricade for the secondary access is rather unattractive. Maybe break -away bollards, or something similar, would be better. 39. A utility coordination meeting must be held soon. Stormwater (Basil Hamdan) 40. A water quality pond must be provided. 41. The necessary outfall points into the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area have not yet been designed. How will these points cross the Trilby Lateral? 42. The limits of disturbance must be shown on the plans. 43. How will the storm drainage cross the existing City trail in the natural area? 44. The storm water flows into the Trilby Lateral need to be less that the historic rate.. The ditch company will need to sign the plans. 45. A 5' wide utility easement is not adequate to put a storm sewer into. ,46. The wetlands are not shown on the grading and drainage plans. 47. Provide a manhole at the bends in the storm sewer. 48. The velocity in the swales and the street capacity are not adequate. 49. How does the grading on this site tie into Phase I? 50. The grading plan is inadequate. 23. 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 the roadway to the property line. This is consistent with the trail in Phase I. 24. The Building Elevations as submitted are the same plans that were submitted, reviewed, and approved with the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase I development plans. Are these buildings the same as or similar to the actual buildings that have been submitted to the Building Inspection Department for permits, and are being built? The elevations show no garages, yet the Site Plan would reflect garages and the Residential Uses Point Chart is taking 3 points for parking within structures. 25. 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. 26. What is the nature of the proposed street lighting? Private streets/drives do not require standard City 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? 27. 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? 28. 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 an existing adjacent bicycle trail (in the Cathy Fromme Prairie) then the trail connection must be fully committed to and shown on the plans. Engineering (Marc Virata) 29. The biggest issue with this project is the private drive proposal. Private drives cannot be named. They should not be designed to look like streets. City staff is reviewing the proposal as if the internal roadways were private "streets'. 30. The old Harmony Road alignment should have a 30' wide roadway cross- section, flowline to flowline, all the way to the City's trailhead parking lot. 31. A cul-de-sac is needed at the west end of the street in Phase I as it transitions to the private drive in Phase II. This would not be as big of a concern if the roadways in Phase 11 were private "streets". 17. 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. 18. 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 221-2053, if you have questions about his comments. 19. Peter Wray of the Advance Planning Department stated that he has no comments regarding this development proposal. 20. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company offered the following comments: a. Easements adjacent to both sides of all streets need to be such that from back -of -walk to the rear line of the utility easement is 13'. b. Easements on corners at intersections need to be "rounded" to reflect the 13' back -of -walk requirement. This will definitely affect some building envelopes. - C. Water pits cannot be within the 13' easements. d. Easement width at fire hydrant locations will need to be increased so that other utilities can get around the hydrants. e. Trees will need to be located so that they are not within 4' of gas lines. In general, gas lines will be 8' back -of -walk on both sides of the streets. Please contact Jim, at 225-7843, if you have questions about these comments. The following general concerns were discussed at the Staff Review Meeting on February 16, 2000: Planning 21. There are two defined areas shown on the Site Plan, at the southeast corner and on the west end, that are not described. Are there wetlands on -site and could it be these areas? 22. The building envelopes, in some cases, appear to be too large and could jeopardize the requirement that the buildings along the ridgeline (on Lots 5 through 11) maintain a minimum of a 50' separation. 12. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department stated that the applicant should see notes on a red -lined Site Plan regarding adding sidewalks and removing some striped crosswalks (but keeping ramps), as well as bicycle/pedestrian improvements to old Harmony Road and Fromme Prairie Way. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about her comments. 13. Rick Richter of the Engineering Department stated that the Soils Report dated January, 2000 indicates high swell soils on part of the site. A mitigation plan has been included but will need to be re -addressed at the time of the pavement design process. Sub -drains may be required. 14. The City of Fort Collins Water/Wastewater Department stated that this project is in the Fort Collins -Loveland Water and South Fort Collins Sanitation Districts service area. 15. Kim Kreimeyer, the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following comments: a. Native grass species must be listed on the Landscape Plan and approved by Natural Resources. b. More landscaping is needed along Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, overlooking the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. See the Harmony Ridge, Phase I Landscape Plan for reference. C. Add the attached language to the Landscape Plan. d. The approach that Natural Resources takes is: first, to avoid disturbance of wetlands; second, to minimize impact with mitigation; and last, to eliminate the on -site wetland and create a wetland elsewhere. If any of these options, except option one, are implemented then mitigation will be required in the form of 1:1 for enhancement or 1:1.5 for creation. e. Any impact to the wetlands will require proof of compliance with the Corps of Engineers. f. This plan does not meet All Development Criterion A-2.3 Natural Features in the LDGS. Please contact Kim, at 221-6641, if you have questions about these comments. 16. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated that he has no comments regarding this development proposal. 7. A copy of the comments received from Rick Lee of the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 8. A copy of the comments received from Roger Frasco of the Poudre Fire Authority is attached to this comment letter. 9. Matt Baker of the Street Oversizing Division of the Engineering Department stated that the existing overhead REA lines along old Harmony Road should be relocated to be underground facilities. 10. The Mapping/Drafting Department offered the following comments: a. The outside boundary closes but the legal description does not match the map on 3 distances. b. How do the lots have access to a public right-of-way? C. The street names should be checked with emergency services. d. What is the status of Harmony Road? e. Private streets should also be access easements. f. The legal calls out for aliquote (sp?) lines but the plat does not show how the lines were determined. Please contact Wally Muscott, at 221-6605, or Jim Hoff, at 221-6588, if you have questions about these comments. 11. Janet McTague of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. Light & Power needs to know the meter locations prior to the electric system design. b. The street trees need to be coordinated with street light locations to ensure meeting the minimum separation. C. The applicant must coordinate the transformer locations with Light & Power. Please contact Janet, at 224-6154, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Representatives 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. b. Are the handicap ramp locations that have been labeled on the Site Plan the only ramp locations? Are there other ramps that have not been shown, such as for the handicapped stall west of Lot 2? C. On the parking breakdown, need to show how many 2-bedroom, 3- bedroom, and 4-bedroom units there would be to determine accurately that number of parking spaces required. d. No trash enclosures are shown on the plans. Will there be any or will each dwelling unit set out their own trash on trash day? If this is the case, it would be best to provide only one trash hauler to minimize truck traffic in the neighborhood. e. It is being suggested that bicycle racks be provided near the parking stalls for visitors and guests. f. Is the landscaping going to phased? If so, please show the phase lines on the Landscape Plan. g. The note on the Site Plan regarding Maximum Height of Buildings is somewhat confusing. Is it possible to illustrate this on the Building Elevations drawings? h. Will there be pedestrian access directly to the trail to the south? I. Looking at the subdivision plat, it appears that the buildings are actually multi -family dwellings (4-plexes, 6-plexes, and 8-plexes), with each multi- family building being on its own lot (Lots 1 —22). In order for these units to be townhomes, each individual dwelling unit must be on its own platted lot, resulting in "zero lot line, attached single family dwellings". Since that is not the stated case here, the plat must be changed to make these true townhomes, or the applicant MUSTI11 change all of the terminology to "multi -family dwellings" and delete all reference to "townhomes". Regardless of what is decided, the Site Plan must include setback information. Please contact the Zoning Department, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. Commt y Planning and Environmental Vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins February 24, 2000 Jim Sell Design c/o Brad Saucerman 153 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Brad, Staff Has reviewed your documentation for the Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase II — Preliminary & Final that was submitted to the City on January 14, 2000, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. Due to the timing of the submittal date for this final PUD request, Harmony�R dge 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 Harmony Ridge PUD, Phase II — Preliminary & Final plan proposes 123 townhome units (multi -family) on 15.81 acres. This is in conformance with the approved Harmony Ridge Overall Development Plan (ODP). The gross residential density would be 7.78 dwelling units per acre, which also is in conformance with the approved 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. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Cable Services stated that they will not make plans to service this project until a Broadband Utility Easement, also called a Service Agreement, is completed with their Commercial Accounts Executive, Reneta Santoro. She may be reached at (970)419-3106, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 5. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office stated that they have no comments regarding this development proposal. 281 North College Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750 - FAX (970) 416-2020