Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOVERLAND HILLS SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY - 38 90 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSen, GEFROH HATTMAN INC. ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 135 West Swallow Road Fort Collins. CO 80525 (303) 223-7335 September 6, 1990 Mr. Steve Olt Planning & Development CITY OF FORT COLLINS Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: OVERLAND HILLS FILING I PRELIMINARY Dear Steve: This letter is a follow-up to the comments that we received from you re- garding the project. As you know, Stewarts & Associates is preparing the documentation for the subdivisions. Our comments relate to your com- ments in the same order as presented in your letter of August 23, 1990. 1. Additional utility easements have been provided as requested. 2. Utility easements have been identified more frequently on the plan. 3. Question Three has several issues rapped up into one. As we dis- cussed in our meeting with you, Sherry, and Mike, the issue of Spring Creek is not being avoided. It is part of our plan to pro- vide construction of Overland Trail with the Third Phase of the de- velopment. We see this development as being continuous to Spring Creek and not contiguous to Overland Trail Road. Overland Trail Road as we know it today, is totally within the Third Phase. No affirmative R.O.W. has been obtained south of the project to permanently place an alignment for the street at this time. No access would be provided to the street. To construct a half section of local street, not knowing exactly where it is going or coming from for a distance of two hundred feet without any anticipated possibility of uses is difficult to envision as being practical with this phase. We have stated all along that Overland Trail will be constructed with Phase Three and is an independent function to this development. This owner has no intention of not developing Overland Trail but sees that it has a time and place with future de- velopment and not with this portion of the project. There is no 75 foot utility drainage easement shown on the First Filing Plans nor is there a need or desire for one. So a dual purpose for this tract is not possible. With respect to the Trail that shows on the City's Master Plan for Parks and Recreation, we have acknowledged this as part of our planning from the beginning of the process. At the Annexation/Zoning Phase, we demonstrated that Spring Creek, Mr. Steve Olt September 6, 1990 Page 2 the Trail, and Overland Trail as a stretch of land would be our density transition. In discussions with the Planners for Overland Trail it was discussed that visually it would be appropriate to provide the open space and Trail between Spring Creek and Overland Trail to give visual relief to the road and provide for possible links to the trail system. We have taken this into consideration in our plan and have provided this continuous green space west of Spring Creek. Other considerations are for continuity of the Trail to our south boarder. East of Spring Creek is a County Subdivision which makes no provision for the Trail. At our North boundary is an independent tract of land which has no intention of providing a trail R.O.W. This leaves us with placing the trail west of the Creek in our future phase where we can provide a continuous path which leaves the City's options open as to future connection points. With respect to dedication we see that it is appropriate but not at this time. We do not want or are we trying to manuver the City into a position where they would be responsible for construction of Overland Trail. As we stated previously, we see Overland Trail being solely contained within Parcel 'C' of our development plan, If no land is dedicated at this time, no responsibility could be implied. 4. It is understood that our client owns the entire Overland Hills' Annexation property, and it is further understood that at appropri- ate times dependent on market, financing, timing, etc., he may wish to develop. Our client is willing to agree to build Overland Trail to local street standards at such time as development on his pro- perty would require that this infra structure be constructed. As stated previously, Overland Hills is not contiguous to this pro- perty and is no more than a potential alignment at this time. To show on a plat, a discontinuous line for a street alignment that may change due to future R.O.W. acquisitions 2 foot or 200 foot is not appropriate. We will show a line noting a possible centerline alignment for a future Overland Hills road. 5. The impacts of storm drainage from Overland Hills have been address- ed in the preliminary drainage report as an off -site contribution. 6. A. Spring Creek will be placed in a separate tract. B. All drainage swales are shown as an easement. C. Flood plain information has been added. D. The intended Overland Trail centerline is shown. E. The grading plan will be finalized at final. F. Revisions to detention caused by any future construction of Overland Trail are accounted for. G. The out fall to the detention from Springfield and this property has been resolved and is being designed by the Springfield Sub- division people. Report A. Detention quantities have been revised. Report B. Our report has been revised to account for Overland Trail and topo information has been revised to align with your Master Plan. Mr. Steve Olt September 6, 1990 Page 3 7. R.O.W. widths are shown. 8. The access point to the Barnes' property, like any other driveway, may be along his property line where it abutts the R.O.W. 9. The connection to Platte Drive and Platte Court is within the County and a separate plat is being processed through the County to provide the legal access. This plat has been forwarded to you for review. We understand the timing requirement. 10. An additional fire hydrant has been provided. If you have further comments that need to be addressed, we will be happy to discuss them. We appreciate your comments and see how they have im- proved the project. Sincerely yours, GEFROH HATTMAN Fredric J. Hattman Vice President kam