HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL - 71 93B - CORRESPONDENCE - MEETING COMMUNICATION• A lei ��e,f �i �L�. ���3/;S C-v
/YNNL Lome
Cre.v e7Inorrl's .
HIM
ME6
a Sss c. e s
d�velv0�„a�.+ /��r�e/+ r.�f�AS he, -A.) I-elCe
/ 1
■■ /VATIIc 7 /r �/E'�✓� (/�.v �Ml'n�. ��rS
/e
o Tlnl G� /J.cJ �(�%
,f fJG .i/..`
[l�Oc lUyrM �� /
O/'/-1 ./��✓c�
/
L".' X
C
%C' /
Gc.>/ �NGSCJ /r.,c/
r c '1'
///� lee- /7 AS
fa vnl�
FlrtA �r�r��.o ���pp zl� /i/�-� s ��J�e �? 1
/y41,, 1AI-r //✓� (P ��C/� T/r oFoG✓�r✓L .
•J . /�✓� C %7 } i / C� �/%/� /�1.� H c G' /S S)0 e ��I / Oc'
/S
t'%�C: /�/i C'/ /W%/�� No L /(O �.✓t:g fie, /Yi e...:
Or G%j✓CAS/Z/<Jyn �9�h/fc/%s �fo,- �.� e b.-. 1 /
DFnndC /o�e// �PSy/�Y9�S.��G Tor /ri �/ '//m�rut/PM �.✓C.3 ZO [
Mil /..�eVe7 ;lrA kc �/'a✓'fL 71
`�////''!7�
�/�Al
St C W
C'07'N A'l G'N�r,'/✓P.J LJ /�ANGy d CP.JC
ccy-2S--9s WEE30
�7
I S. C 1 7 Y S C A R a U R 19 A N 1) E: S X G N
0
VP@�
urban design, inc
P - 0 -22
Engineering is now requiring improvements to Vine Drive adjacent to Waterglan that
are contrary to the dir"ection Love was given by City Staff last year; .and contrary to the
Staffs position on street oversizing.
It is,urfair to change requirements at this late date.
City Staff wants the developer to provide approvals from all 'holders t easement and .ROW
o cross over, under, or through their easements.
Tw6 full meetings'Utility Coordinating Meetings and at least tan othimeetingswith
vario various utilities have been held, and the approved PUD plans reflect
a. tirectio'd H, we were given through the process, We are aware of no provisions
in the City Code that require this applicant to secure written approvals from
easement holders; especially when such documents have not been consistently.' :..
required in the past.
Aftere6irlier directing Love to separate master grading, utility, and roadwayplansf6r'
clarity at 1.". = 1001, City Staff now apparently wants v d vast amounts of data combined
on the same sheets and at a larger scale.
It is too late in the process to just "change cur minds" and make a fundziniahtil
.,,change in . a huge, complex set of plans.
there are*Ja.'np'mber of other minor questions that should be addressed at a meeting
with the concerned departments.
4 1
Basically,'We need to have a clear agreement - as we thought we had after several '.'
earlier +meetings '-'on what has to be done in order to file the approved PUD plans and, plat,,and
begin this long a * waited project.
A
1 9 C I T Y S C A I
Post-1C Fax Note 7671 '
Da e of
le:
From
To , -
00,
Phono 0
Phone tl
Fax 0 . '
Fax 0 ..
URHA_N_ DES I GN _ _F- F� 1
urban design, inc.
3555 starford road, suite 1o5
MEMORANDUM fort collies,colorado80525
}; !
(970) 226-4074
r FAX (970) 226.4196
Bob Blanchard, City of Fort Collins .�
ADO'L COPIES: Bill Reynolds, Jerry Lee, Bibby Glass, and Rick Woodruff
';' ; •.. • . W, W. Reynolds Companies
Lucia Liley, March & Myatt Z.-'
�`
' ;: • Nancy Love, Love & Associates
`
;•'• FROM: Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Dgsign, Inc. ? ..
;` �"'' '•'::
DATE: Oct .' October 24, 1995 i " -
I
' RE: Waterglen PUD - Outstanding Items.
f'ROJEC7 6552 (6552ME39)
As we "discussed briefly, we need to schedule a meeting regarding some new
' comments on the Waterglen project. On October 13th, Love & Associates "met with
engineering; drainage; and parks staff members; and passed on several comments to the'.';.;:':
;^•:
:.' developer that do not appear to be appropriate at this point in the process (W erglen wigs first
:. subiy fitted for review in October of 1993;_received final P&Z approval in October of 1994; and
City CV ouncil rQnfirmed that apprgval at an appeal heanng on January 1 95}. Specific
comments - as we understand them from Love & Associates - that are cf concern. include:.'..:_
Storm drainage is requesting that existing drainage improvements on the Anheuser.'.
Busch property be surveyed and shown on the Waterglen plans. Drainage is also
;requesting additional easements, individual grading plans - including exact, building •:'
'.= ' `
footprints for each single family lot, and additional right-of-way for the•"oversized•"
-
length of a box culvert under Vine Drive.7.
It is not clear why information regarding approved and constructed iteriis on the
:: • . : -;'.adjacent property Is needed; or why additional easements are only now being
r = .j •; : ; -
=:•, requested after two years of review. "Oversizing" of street improvements is .:
;; �•; .
not being done with this project as per the City s decision during the PUD :
" ',• i:.;%; -
review process.
-_. The Parks~ Department is requesting additional utility services, and changes in the
illustration of the site plan. Parks is also asking "Who is responsible.• for park, planning,
design, and construction?"
Utility lines have been extended Into the Park site. The illustration of -possible
faoilities, including the note, "ACTUAL PARK FACILITIES TO BE DETERMINED , •
:" '`'
;i; ; ,•, :, •: IN CONJUNCTION WITH PARKS AND RECREATION", was included on the PUD' '
` •• '
plans as requested during the public review process. The PUD plans will remain;• ?
44 " as approved by P&Z.
A. basic approach to park acquisition, design, construction, irrigation,: and'
;...
1''' I '. .. • : maintenance was agreed upon by the Parks Staff and the'Parks �& Recr
g eation
Board in late'1993 and early 1594. A detailed agreement with the developer. •.
.:... .
is, to bemeompleted after the plat Is filed.