Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE PUD, 3RD FILING - FINAL - 32-95E - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)f Sincerely, Steve Olt Project Planner xc: Engineering . Zoning Stormwater Utility Poudre Fire Authority Transportation Planning Natural Resources Thompson School District R2-J U.S. Home Corporation Northern Engineering Services_ , Inc. Landstar Surveying, Inc. rProject File 432-95E 29. Street trees, as shown on the Landscape Plan on Bon Homme Richard Drive coming in from the First or Second Filing, should be continued along that street in this filing. Your response to this comment said that street trees have been added. The revised Landscape Plan does not show any new street trees over those shown on the plan dated 8/30/99. 30. The surface material for the off-street pedestrian paths must be described on the Site and Landscape Plans. All of these trails should be 8'in width. 31. See additional comments on red -lined Site and Landscape Plans being forwarded to the applicant. 32. *****The City's GIS Department has discovered that a 35' to 40' wide strip on this property along the west line is in Larimer County and outside of the. Urban Growth Area boundary. This affects several lots in the Registry Ridge PUD, First Filing and almost all of Lots 1 - 27 in this Third Filing. The necessary annexation and revision to the Urban Growth Area boundary must take place before this development request can be scheduled for a Planning and Zoning Board public hearing and decision*****. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments could 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 the comment letter 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. Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Planning 21. Comment 6.b on .the October 13, 1999 comment letter has not been fully addressed. There are still some streets on some Site Plan sheets that do not have the names on them. 22. Comment 6.c on the October 13, 1999 comment letter has not been addressed. The revised subdivision plat, as submitted,- still does not have square footages on the lots. 23. Your response letter, dated January 11, 2000, indicated that Comment 20 on the October 13, 1999 comment letter has been acknowledged. However, nothing has changed. 24. In response to Comment 21 in the October 13, 1999 comment letter you said to see Registry Ridge, First Filing. How does the First Filing address - off -site easements for storm drainage into the adjacent natural area from the Third Filing? 25. The dividing line between the LMN portion and the UE portion of the development plan should be shown on the Site Plan, not just the Vicinity Map. 26. What is planned for the described Registry Ridge, Second Filing, to the north of the detention pond along South Shields Street? Your response said that it is a portion of the preliminary/final submittal of Registry Ridge, Second Filing that was submitted on January 18, 2000. The Second Filing plan that was submitted is all north of Bon Homme Richard Drive and does not include this parcel of land. Again, what is planned for this area? 27. All of the off-street trails must be 8' wide and be a concrete surface. To avoid confusion, all of the notes on the Site Plan.must reflect 8' wide .paths constructed of concrete. 28. Overall, the landscaping and plant materials in the open space areas on the Landscape Plan appear to be very sparse. Your response said that this comment was acknowledged and to see the Landscape Plan. The revised Landscape Plan does not look any different form the one dated 8/30/99. 10. Access ramps are needed at the heads of all trail connections. Details of the ramps, inlets, etc. relating to the trails are also needed. 11. Update the plat language and sight distance easement language on the plans. 12. The street stub at the west end of Bon Homme Ricahrd Drive may be able to be eliminated, depending on whether there is need for access to either of the lots adjacent to the street. This is related to the concern about potential future access into the City's natural area to the west. 13. The phase lines on the utility plans are difficult to read. 14. The proposed phasing on the utility plans may be of concern. Please contact Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority (221-6570)and Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility (224-6035)to determine:'if the phasing will work as proposed. 15 There are concerns about the.grades on the streets in the area of the eliminated traffic circle. 16. A Natural Resources Department signature block must be included on the utility plans. Stormwater Utility (Basil Hamdan) 17. Off -site grading easements are needed for work on the Natural Resources property to the west. Please contact Tom Shoemaker, at 221-6263, or Mark Sears, at 416-2096, to discuss the Natural Resources Department position and how to acquire the necessary easements. 18. Extend the storm drainage channel to the gulch to the south. Please work with the Natural Resources Department on the design of the channel. 19. The storm drainage pipes must be pressure -sealed and noted on the utility plans. Natural Resources (Kim Kreimever) 20. The non-native plant materials should be changed to native. 3. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments may be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his. comments. 4. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments may be found on red -lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Donald, at 221-2053, if you have questions about his comments. 5. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department stated that her comments regarding bicycle/pedestrian connections and enhanced crosswalk locations 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 her comments. 6. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Cable Services (formerly TCI of Fort Collins) stated that they need to have continuous utility easements along the rear of the lots or the Tracts marked as utility easements. There are no rear lot utility easements marked on the plat map that they have received. Also,. there is no way to access the rear lot easements on Lots 170, 171, 182, 183, 194, 195, 206, and 207, if that is what is trying to be shown on the maps received. 7. A copy of the comments received.from the Mapping/Drafting Department is attached to this comments letter. Please contact Jim Hoff, at 221-6588, or Wally Muscott, at 221-6605, if you have questions about their comments. 8. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department stated that this revised.plan is fairly consistent with the originally submitted plan. He does, however, have concerns regarding the required improvements to Trilby Road and South Shields Street. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions regarding these comments. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review meeting on February 2, 2000: Engineering (Marc Virata) 9. Show the phasing plan on the Site Plan. Commu. y Planning and Environmental, _vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins February 14, 2000 VF Ripley Associates, Inc. c/o Shirley Serna 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Shirley, Staff has reviewed your revisions for the Registry Ridge PUD, Third Filing - Final that were submitted to the City on January 11, 2000, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. Kate Browne of the Thompson School District R24 stated that they want to know when the Final Plat is approved and permits can be issued. 2. Kim Kreimeyer, the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following comments: a. Change the Landscape Plan to use Big Bluestem. Sand Bluestem is not native to this area. b. Cool season vegetation (annual rye) is not native to this area. Try using Western Wheat, Squirreltail, Blueflax, and native Aster mix. C. For warm season vegetation try Purple .......... (?check w/Kim), Side Oats Grama, and Buffalo mix instead of Millet and Sorghum, which are not native to this area. d. There is an issue with grades tying into the Natural Area to the west of the site. e. The storm drainage outlet off of Bon Homme Richard Drive, to the south, is of concern from an erosion standpoint. Please contact Kim, at 221-6641, if you have questions about her comments. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020