Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTETSON CREEK PUD, SECOND FILING - FINAL - 16-89H - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSCorn- Y Planning and Environmental ey ices Current Planning City of Fort Collins June 2, 1995 Mr. Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design 3335 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Eldon: Staff has reviewed the request for Stetson Creek, Filing Two, Final P.U.D. and offers the following comments: 1. The request for Final P.U.D. will not be allowed to proceed to the June Planning and Zoning Board hearing due to a significant discrepancy that has been discovered in the volume of storm flows anticipated for the McClelland Channel. The Stormwater Utility has asked for new SWMM modeling hydrology study to verify upstream developed conditions. There is a possibility that 150 c.f.s. may be unaccounted for and that the channel is undersized. Until this information has been submitted and reviewed by Stormwater, the Final P.U.D. cannot proceed. There is a concern that the new data may cause the channel size to increase thereby influencing the layout of streets, lots, and easements. More detailed comments from Stormwater have been forwarded directly to Northern Engineering. 2. The following comments apply to the plat: A. In the last call of the legal description, the legal does not match the map. B. To establish a basis of bearings, you must find two Public lands survey monuments. Only one is indicated while the other is assumed. C. The vicinity map should place the site in the context of the city limits. Please add the city boundaries and County Road #36 for reference. D. The west end of Aspen Brook Court right-of-way line appears to overlap the property line. E. Curve data needs to be completed, please add radius and delta values. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 FAX (970) 221-6378 TDD (970) 224-6002 3. Please keep trees 10 feet away and shrubs four feet away from water and sewer mains and service lines. 4. Signage must be added to the emergency access lane: "No Parking - Fire Lane." 5. Landscape Note Number 14 does not work as an effective enforcement mechanism. Landscape materials must be secured prior to issuance of the first C.O. 6. Please provide information on the latest negotiation with the homeowners to the south in the Blehm and Scheller Subdivisions regarding the location and ownership of the return flow ditch and resolution of livestock conflicts with the perimeter fence. Will a six foot wood fence withstand livestock? If livestock are separated from this fence, is there an "alley" that is created between fences? If there is an alley, who maintains? How have these issues been resolved and what is the latest contact with the neighbors? Please provide a detail on the P.U.D. as to how the southerly lots in Stetson Creek relate to the existing County lots. These issues were unresolved at Preliminary. This concludes Staff comments at this time. As mentioned, the project is not eligible for the June P & Z meeting due to issues with McClelland Channel. For your information, the revision date for the July P & Z meeting is July 5, 1995. It is suggested that the parties meet after additional drainage information is provided to the Stormwater Utility in order to check on the status of the plans at that point. Otherwise, it is difficult to schedule the review process for this project. As always, please call if there are any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely: Ted Shepard Senior Planner