Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD P.U.D., 2ND FILING - FINAL - 7-95D - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (3)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. You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments. Sincerely, *teve M ft, Project Planner cc: Engineering Stormwater Utility Zoning Transportation .Planning Natural Resources Advance Planning Colorado Land Source, Ltd. Nolte Associates, Inc. Project File #7-95D 43. Details are needed for facilities that are not designed to City standards. 44. An overall drainage plan for the project is needed. It appears that the plans are currently broken up into several different plans. 45. Clearly delineate the construction limits around the wetlands and detention pond. Planning 46. A bicycle/pedestrian trail should be provided between the west end of the Garganey Drive cul-de-sac and either Conifer Street or County Road 11. 47. How will County Road 11 be built? Who is or what projects are responsible for the construction? 48. There appear to be conflicting lot numbers in this development. The Site Plan and subdivision plat contain 2 each of Lots 1 — 24. There are no "block" designations to differentiate one similar lot number from the other. 49'. A note pertaining to wetlands protection, as requested in City's comment letter dated 12/22/97, has not yet been added to the Site Plan and subdivision plat. 50. A certification/signature block for the City's Natural Resources Department must be added to the Site Plan before it can be recorded and filed.. If it is not yet.determined if this signature block is needed, when will the determination be made? 51. There are still some street names missing from the site and Landscape Plans. Please see the red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 52. When will the fencing on the rear of lots along the wetlands be determined? This is a final PUD plan. The future residents of these lots need to know what restrictions relate to their lots at time of purchase. 53. The signage locations for the commercial buildings do not appear to be on the building elevations on Sheets 9 & 10, as previously requested. 54. Has a meeting or phone conversation with Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department taken place to address his concerns? 55. When will it be determined if the landscaping in this development is to be phased? If the plans are recorded and filed and phasing is desired later, then a minor amendment to the Landscape Plan would be necessary. 56. Did the solar orientation variance that was granted with the preliminary PUD address the new lotting configuration? This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Natural Resources (Kim Kreimever) 26. The alignment of Conifer Street needs to avoid all existing trees. 27. A note pertaining to the City's Natural Resources Department purchase of the wetlands area must be added to the appropriate plans. 28. Red -lined plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Transportation Planning (Mark Jackson, Kathleen Reavis) 29. Is Muscovy Drive wide enough for on -street parking and bicycle lanes? 30. Is there a plan for a bicycle/pedestrian trail from this development and going to the northwest, somewhat in conjunction with the Larimer & Weld Canal? A trail is shown on the Parks & Recreation Master Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. Kathleen Reavis will set up a meeting with the applicant, Janet Meisel -Burns, and the Planning Department(s) to discuss the potential trail. 31. Sidewalks, a minimum of 5' in width, are required along Merganser Drive. 32. The bicycle/pedestrian trails connecting this site to the school and park sites must be a minimum of 8' in width. 33. An updated Transportation Impact Study is not required with this development request. 34. Red -lined plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Stormwater Utility (Basil Harridan) 35. What is the status of easements in the wetlands area? 36. There is a. big swale, in an. easement, along Merganser Drive. This easement needs to be vacated if the intent is to put lots on top of it. 37. Where is the outfall from the natural area pond and the detention pond along County Road11? 38. Information is vague, unclear, and inconsistent about the utilities between Filings 1 & 2 of the Waterfield PUD. 39. The plans do not show the grading for Filing 1:. How does it tie into Filing 2? 40. - Lots of storm drainage facilities are not shown on these plans. 41. The plans do not include a detail for the outlet structure on the natural pond. 42. The plans are missing a lot of details. Please contact Kim, at 221-6641, if you have questions about these comments. 13. Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. As previously indicated, show and label the existing 30" City of Fort Collins water main and its associated appurtenances in all views.. b. Show and label the existing 20' water main utility easement on the subdivision plat. C. See red -lined Site, Landscape, and utility plans for other comments. Please contact Jeff; at 221-6681, if .you have questions about these comments. 14. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that they have no service plans for this area in their Transit Development Plan. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the Staff Review meeting on September 1, 1999: Engineering (Dave Stringer) 15. With the elimination of some of the residential, is the density requirement that was placed on the development at time of rezoning still met? 16. None of the streets stubbing into Merganser Drive fit the right-of-way dedications as shown on the subdivision plat. 17. All off -site easements need to be shown on the appropriate plans. 18. No drainage/utility easement is shown for the storm sewer between Lots 30 & 31. 19. The uses for the "tracts" must be identified on the plans. 20. Street right-of-way widths are not shown on the plans. 21. No utility plans for the commercial area have been submitted to the City for review. The utility plans .must be submitted or the layout for this area must be taken off the plans. This area cannot receive final approval without utility plans. 22. Pedestrian easements to the school site are needed. 23. Is Muscovy Drive wide enough for on -street parking and bicycle lanes? 24. Subdrains are being proposed. The applicant must submit (ASAP) an underground water study that could support the use of subdrains. 25. What property is the Natural Resources Department going to buy? The tracts of land that they do not buy must be labeled as to what uses are proposed. 8. Mark Jackson of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. The south end of Merganser Drive is designed as a collector street with on -street parking and 6' wide bicycle lanes. Minimum 5' wide sidewalks are required along Merganser. b. If the trails connecting this site to the school and recreation areas are to be shared by bicycles and pedestrians then they must be a minimum of 8' in width. C. A trail connection should be made from Garganey Drive to Conifer Street. d. Clearly mark pedestrian crossings where noted on the red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. e. Bicycle/pedestrian connections should be added in the pond/park area as indicated on the red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. f. An updated/amended Transportation Impact Study is not required with this development request. Please contact Mark, at 416-2029, if you have questions about these comments. 9. Lorie Digliani of Police Services offered the following comments: a. The subdivision plat shows Mergancer Drive and the Site.Plan shows Merganser Drive. They appear to be the same street. Please make the spelling of the street name consistent on all plans. b. Please change the street name Wood Duck Drive. There currently is a Woodchuck Drive in Fort Collins. These two street names are too similar and could create confusion for emergency response teams. 10. A copy of the comments received from Dave Stringer of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Additional Engineering comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Dave, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 11. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. Red -lined reports and plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Donald, at 221-2053, if you have questions about his comments. 12. Kim Kreimeyer; the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following comments: a. The alignment of Conifer Street should avoid all existing trees. b. See the red -lined plans for additional comments. d. Are the commercial buildings going to have any building -mounted exterior lighting? If so, the lighting locations and types must be shown on the building elevations. e. Show pole -mounted lighting locations on the Site and Landscape Plans. They must be shown on the Landscape Plan so that lighting and tree placement can be checked. f. The handicapped parking space requirements are 2 spaces for the daycare center and 1 space for the c-store. . g. More articulation should be provided on the north and south elevations of the car wash to mitigate the plain, straight brick wall. Possibly add columns like on the c- store building. h. If the escrow for landscaping is to be phased, as stated in Planting Note #5 on the Landscape Plan, then show landscape phase lines on the plan. i. Show the one street tree per lot along the local streets as committed to in Planting Note #7 on the Landscape Plan. Please contact Gary or Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Webb Jones of the East Larimer County Water District stated that his comments are on a red -lined set of utility plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 6. Janet McTague of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. Paired water services will need to be coordinated with Light & Power facilities since their facilities are on the lot lines. b. The plans show a storm drain behind the curb & gutter along East Vine Drive. Light & Power will have a 3-phase line along Vine Drive that may conflict with the proposed storm sewer. Please contact Janet, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these comments. 7. Jim Slagle of Public Service offered the following comments: a. Public Service Company has an existing 12" high pressure gas line in an exclusive 50' wide utility easement adjacent to the old right-of-way line. b. Any relocation of Public Service Company facilities caused by this development will be at the developer's expense. f. AT&T Cable Services will need rear lot utility easements on Lots 1 — 24 in the Muscovy Drive, Shearwater Drive, Aleutian Drive area. Also, rear lot utility easements are needed on Lots 64 & 65, 69 & 70. 3. Ron Gonzales 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" numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on a brown brick are not acceptable). b. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 800' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,000 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. C. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire hydrant. This applies to the Daycare Center and the C-Store. d. A fire sprinkler system is required for the Daycare Center. e. A fire alarm system is required for the Daycare Center. f. The intersection of Muscovy Drive and Muscovy Drive shall not exist at Lot 6. A new street name shall be provided for one or the other Muscovy Drives. g. Corrosives, flammable liquids, reactive, or toxic materials (as defined in the .Uniform Fire Code) if used, stored, or handled on -site must have a Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis (HMIA) completed and supplied to the Planning Department and the Fire Department. This applies to the fuel dispensing operation of the C-Store. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 4. Jenny Nuckols and Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. The placement of the crosswalk and handicapped ramp in front of Lot 21 (and maybe Lot 22) on Aleutian Drive may conflict with the possible location of a driveway for the lot. b. This area is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District in the Sign Code. Show the placement of signage on the commercial buildings along East Vine Drive. C. The commercial portion of the project is located in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. They will be considered as auto -related & roadside commercial and business service uses for sign standards purposes. Commui j Planning and Environmental'. vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins September 8, 1999 VF Ripley Associates, Inc. c/o Cathy Mathis 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Cathy, Staff has reviewed your revisions for the Waterfield PUD, Second Filing - Final, that were submitted to the City on August 3, 1999, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. The Mapping/Drafting Department offered the following comments: a. This subdivision plat will need to be reviewed again, after revisions are submitted. It has too many problems. Some major problems are: • The map and legal description do not match. • All parcels within the plat must be a lot or a.tract. Existing street right-of-way must be vacated by City Council. • There is upside-down lettering. • Bearings, & distances are missing. b. Curve information is missing. C. Lines are not dimensioned. d. What is the right-of-way dimension? e. What is the road centerline dimension? 2. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Cable Services offered the following comments: a. What are Tracts "A", "B", and "C" to be used for? b. What is the open space between Lots 12 & 13 and Lots 69, 70 & 71? C. Could the areas listed above be utility easements? d. Is there a utility easement along the outside of the road rights -of -way on . Mergancer Drive, East Vine Drive, County Road 11, and Conifer Drive? e. Are there utility easements across Tract "F" along Garganey Drive? 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020