HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTETSON CREEK PUD, FIRST FILING - FINAL - 16-89F - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSand Environmental•rvices
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
December 23, 1993
Mr. Eldon Ward
Cityscape Urban Design
3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Eldon:
Staff has conducted its interdepartmental review of Stetson Creek
Filing One, Final P.U.D. The following comments are offered:
1. Public Service Company requests that utility easements be
extended across Tracts A, C, and E at intersections so that
crossings can be made at Stetson Creek Drive in utility easements
to streets stubbed in on the north side. (This includes the two
cul-de-sacs in Tract A.)
2. Public Service Company is concerned about fencing and
landscaping at the rear of landscape easements in Tracts A, B, C,
and E. Utility lines in these areas should not be blocked from
street access. The P.U.D. or covenants should make it clear to
homeowners that fencing and landscaping that would block access to
utilities from the street is prohibited.
3. Public Service Company requests that Tracts C and E also be
dedicated as access easements in order to allow access to the
utility easements.
4. Light and Power requests that Tracts A, C, E, F, (and B along
Stetson Creek Drive) also be dedicated as utility easements.
5. Light and Power cautions that if this P.U.D. develops prior to
final widening of the east side of Timberline Road to Harmony Road,
then the developer will be required to provide off site easements
and pay for a temporary electric line from Harmony Road.
6. U.S. West cautions that review of these plans should not be
construed as a commitment to provide telephone service.
7. U.S. West requests a 15' x 30' easement for three large
telephone equipment cabinets in the general vicinity of Timberline
Road and Stetson Creek Drive.
8. The Drainage Report indicates groundwater will be encountered
during utility installation. However, no Soils Report was provided
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
0 •
with this submittal. The City Engineering Department is concerned
that there may be a need to design a sub drain system but no such
system was indicated on the utility plans. This discrepancy
between the Drainage Report and the utility plans should be
resolved as the design and review of a sub drain system can be
lengthy in relationship to the seven week review process.
9. It is not clear where the temporary fire lane for second point
of access leads to. How far does this lane go? What does this
lane connect to? Will an offsite easement be required? Does it
lead to the Southeast Junior High School? Please clarify.
10. Please note that additional comments on the utility plans,
drainage and grading plans and drainage report will be forwarded to
the consulting engineer under separate cover.
11. The following comments apply to the plat:
A. The control monument at the southwest corner of Section 5 does
not meet State requirements.
B. The control monument at the northwest corner of Section 5 is
not as described on the plat.
C. The number of lots and the percentage of the total that comply
with the Solar Orientation Ordinance should be noted on the
plat.
12. For purposes of addressing and emergency providers, it is
confusing to have two intersections of Stetson Creek Drive and
Redstone Creek Drive. Have you considered Redstone Creek "Circle"?
13. The Poudre Fire Authority has advised that there is a conflict
with the following street names:
A. Redstone Creek Drive conflicts with several existing Redstone
street names in the P.F.A. service territory.
B. Buckhorn Creek Court conflicts with several existing Buckhorn
street names in the P.F.A. service territory.
C. Alpine Brook Court also conflicts with existing street names.
14. At this point, Staff has heard of a preliminary finding that
the maximum volume of storm flows (c.f.s.) anticipated for the
McClelland Channel is lower than what was discussed at Preliminary
P.U.D. This should be verified. As you are aware, the Department
of Natural Resources and the Stormwater Utility are interested in
a channel design that is soft and meandering and naturalistic. To
extent practical, the design of the grading and planting of the
vegetation should promote natural resource values. As this channel
gets designed, the Department of Natural Resources would like to
stay involved in the discussion among the developer, the consulting
engineer, Cityscape, Stormwater Utility, and the Planning Department.
0 •
15. Please amend Landscape Plan Note #9 so that it reads:
"Landscaping indicated in common open space tracts and public
right -of -ray is to be provided..."
16. Should the open area between Lots 22 and 23 be labeled as an
access easement?
17. Are there plans for restricting the fence design along
Timberline for Lots 1 - 5?
This concludes Staff comments at this time. Please note the
following deadlines for the January 24, 1994 Planning and Zoning
Board meeting:
Plan revisions are due January 5, 1994.
P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, renderings are due Jan. 18, 1994.
As always, please call if there are any questions or concerns
regarding these comments.
Sincerely:
-F�
Ted Shepard
Senior Planner
xc: Joe Frank, Chief Planner
Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer