HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN FARM PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 18 92D - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSPROGRESSIVE
LIVING
STRUCTURES
INC.
September 7, 1999
Ted Shepard
City of Ft. Collins, Senior Planner
P.O. Box 560
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
RE: Mountain Ridge Farms Second Filing
Mr. Shepard,
D T C� 0 T ,
SEP 1 0 1999 JU
As per the discussion at our meeting September 1, 1999, we are providing comments to staff
review comments dated August 18, 1999. These refer only to comments 5.a. and 5.b.
As to 5.a.
The trail has been added per city request and we acknowledge that a future city trail has been
planned for Mountain Ridge. The preliminary site and landscape plan for Mountain Ridge
Farm P.U.D. does show a proposed city trail adjacent to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal.
We believe that it had been anticipated that such bike/ped trail would be along a ditch vehicle
access way.
As to 5.b.
We have shown in the Mountain Ridge Second Filing the `appropriate pedestrian and bicycle
link' from the neighborhood to the proposed city trail. Further we have opted to link the
neighborhood trail to Wabash Street via the connection from Ridgeview Court.
As a matter of information Mountain Ridge First Filing owners were not required to construct
any trail system adjacent to the proposed city trail.
As to 5.b. • (2)
We do not believe the preliminary plat vesting requires the developer to provide a connection
from the proposed city trail to the cul-de-sac on Woodview Pl. between Lots 11 & 12. Such a
path was not designated on the preliminary and access to the proposed city trail is easily
obtained from the access on Ridgeview Ct.
4190 N. GARFIELD
Hwy. 287 & E. 42nd
LOVELAND, CO 80538
(970)669-0870
As to 5.b. • (3)
We do not believe the preliminary plat vesting requires the developer to escrow funds for a 6'
wide pedestrian/bike bridge across Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. This bridge benefits a
future filing of Mountain Ridge for access to the proposed city trail.
It is our belief the rules have changed since the preliminary plat was approved and the city is
asking that a minor portion of the proposed lots in the Mountain Ridge P.U.D. are being asked
to carry the burden of responsibility. If the city wanted the developer to build the proposed city
trail this should have been outlined in the approval of the preliminary. This would have
accomplished two major items. One being the cost of such trail could have been spread to all
the lot owners and secondly a future parcel owner such as ourselves would have picked up on
such requirement during our due diligence process.
Sincerely,
A
eo J. Schuster
President
LJS/as
Cc: George Hart