Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD PDP - 71 93A - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)J 'ZIo����a o 0 urban design. inc. Adopted City Land Use Policies (including 25, 40, and 41) clearly indicate that City participation in infrastructure costs in the northeast area is appropriate. Note: In the notes provided by Jon Ruiz from our March 24, 1994 meeting, he states that the "City will work out concepts of what work needs to be done, options for funding the work, and timing of funding.... If (the) City and Developer come to agreement on these issues, (the) Developer will not submit waivers to P&Z. Waivers will be requested if (the parties) can't agree..." This is not exactly correct. It is entirely possible that the City and the Developer will agree on a solution that will still require a waiver from P&Z. It was also our understanding that the applicant would be involved in determining the extent of the work required, and the funding options. Revised Land Use Breakdowns and Density Charts are attached. Reductions, color renderings, and 10 sets of prints will be submitted by April 18th. Please distribute copies of this letter to the staff members who attended the March 24th meeting. Sincerely, Eldon Ward, President Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. cc: Bill Reynolds, W.W. Reynolds Companies Libby Glass, W.W. Reynolds Companies Mike Blank, W.W. Reynolds Companies Jack Blake, Stewart & Associates David Love, Love & Associates Armando Balloffet, Balloffet and Associates Matt Delich Lucia Liley, March & Myatt urban design, inc. NOISE IMPACTS The Waterglen PUD Noise Impact Assessment completed by Balloffet & Associates indicates that an increase in the height of the proposed berm along 1-25 to 101t is recommended to mitigate the noise impacts from that roadway. As stated in the report, provisions in the City Code are intended to regulate noise generated by a proposed development and the noise impacts of traffic generated by the development on adjacent City Streets; and do not fit the situation at Waterglen. Therefore the Waterglen analysis is based on the commonly used noise criteria specified by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Colorado Department of Transportation. The applicant has agreed to the mitigation measures recommended in the study. OFF -SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS As discussed in our meeting of March 24th, the applicant is willing to participate in the costs of improvements to Vine Drive by either: Overlaying the existing surface of Vine Drive between Waterglen and Lemay in order to extend the life of the roadway by 10 to 15 years; Improving Vine to the normal, full depth, "off -site" standard between the subject property and Summit View; or Adding up to $1,000/unit to the standard Street Oversizing fee in order to contribute a fair amount to Vine Drive improvements if Vine were to become a part of the City's Capital Improvements Program. It is our understanding that the Staff preference at this time is the first alternative. We will provide a letter outlining a specific proposal early next week. Regardless of the alternative for equitable participation in off -site street improvements, Waterglen should be eligible for reimbursement for the oversizing of Waterglen Drive and the applicable Vine Drive frontage for the following reasons: The City Code states that, "If a street within or adjacent to the development is improved as an arterial or collector street rather than a residential street, the Director of Engineering shall compute the extra expense caused ..... Such extra expense shall be paid by the city out of the street oversizing fund.." Waterglen meets the criteria of being "located between existing development and the nearest fully improved arterial street that provides major access to the development." Anheuser Busch must be recognized as existing development. If Lemay is to be defined as the nearest improved arterial providing major access to the development, Waterglen is located as described in the City criteria. The Streets in question are required to be master planned as a collector and an arterial, respectively. April 7, 1994 Steve Olt Project Planner City or Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Steve; coodywp(A� urban design. inc. 3555 stanford road. suite 105 fort collins. colorado 80525 (303)226-4074 FAX (303) 226-4196 Attached are eight copies of the Waterglen PUD, Preliminary Site and Landscape Plans, revised in response to the Planning and Zoning board's comments. Responses to specific concerns include: STORM DRAINAGE Love & Associates have completed the "Preliminary Drainage Report" as requested; and three copies have been submitted directly to the Storm Drainage Utility. The report includes sizing of detention ponds, calculations of release rates, sizing of the box culvert under Vine Drive, delineation of the Cooper Slough wetlands and other items included on the check list provided by the City. RESOURCE PROTECTION Included in the report from Love & Associates, are their findings related to the Cooper Slough. Their investigation determined that the Slough is = a unique warm water spring as had been previously believed, but is fed by ground water and seepage from. the Larimer Weld Canal. They have also determined that the water quality, quantity, and temperature will not be adversely affected by the development of Waterglen as proposed. The existing wildlife habitat along the slough is proposed to remain in its existing condition. Based on the February 7th letter from the Division of Wildlife, we have made design adjustments to the preliminary site and landscape plans to achieve a 150' minimum buffer area between the existing Cooper Slough wetlands and the nearest dwelling units. We are also proposing berming and the creation of linear detention/water quality ponds between the slough and the nearby homes. We have also applied the 150' minimum buffer width to the west side of the slough. However, the request that a continuous 6' high cage fence be constructed along the slough in unacceptable to the developer of Waterglen. Also, the request that all lots between Elgin Court and the slough be removed, cannot be accommodated unless the applicant is further compensated for both the value of the land and the proportionate share of the infrastructure costs that would be born by the affected development area.