The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOVERLAND HILLS WEST RF SITE PLAN REVIEW - 38 90D - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2)Comm Ay Planning and Environmenta ervices Planning Department City of Fort Collins October 15, 1992 Jim Gefroh Gefroh-Hattman Architects 145 West Swallow Road Fort Collins, CO. 80526 Dear Jim: Staff has reviewed your submittal documents for the Overland Hills West, Cluster Development Site Plan Review, and has the following comments to offer: 1. There are four significant parts to this type of City review, and they are: 1) RF Site Plan Review, 2) Subdivision Plat, 3) Utility/Storm Drainage Plans, and 4) Traffic Study. The Site Plan review, potentially being a 7 week one-step process, must coincide with the Final platting and utility plan review to be considered for final approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. The utility and drainage plans that were submitted on September 28th are labeled as "preliminary plans". The Engineering Department and Stormwater Utility representatives have reviewed these plans and have said that they do not contain enough information for a complete preliminary submittal. This request is not presently in a form that would allow us to take the item to the Board for a decision. I feel that it is very important for us to hold a "utility coordination" meeting to discuss the status of the deficiencies. 2. Specific comments related to the Site Plan are: a) The "Drainageway and Open Space" Tracts A thru C as shown` E)- on the preliminary plat must be shown on this plan. Tract A should be designated as a "Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle" easement. VAbt-'h b) The shape of the Barnes property is different on the Site Plan than on the preliminary plat and utility plans. It 'pn�p should be consistent on all plans. c) The Spring Creek Trail should be shown on this plan. It does not appear that there is adequate room for the trail between the Barnes property and overland Trail. e 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 d) There is no detention area shown on this plan. Where is .,ANI it to occur? e) The exact species in the Native Grass mix should be shown on this plan. f) The development needs to provide bicycle/pedestrian access to the open space on the west from the upper tier of lots. Is there any intent to provide bicycle/pedestrian access (across the open space) to properties north and south of this development? g) Planning Statement Note #3, relating to building envelopes, should be omitted. This is not a P.U.D. and the RF Zoning District is subject to the absolute setback criteria of the RL Zoning District. This note is superfluous. h) Notes 1 thru 4 on the lower right-hand side of the plan (above the Utilities & Streets Notes) should be titled for clarification. Also, Note #3 in this area should be omitted. This is a private covenant issue. Building Inspection and Zoning do not enforce this. Note #4 states that the sign locations are noted on the plan. These locations are not shown on the plan.0'�_ i) The information on the plan lacks clear definition about ownership and on -going maintenance of the easements and n. open space areas. It is important to work with Parks & v Recreation and Natural Resources to determine how these areas will be managed. j) On the original submittal there was reference to farm animals being allowed on a portion of the property. Is the intent still to allow animals? If so, the issue will have to be addressed in detail as required in the RF Zoning District. k) Standard planting notes are needed on the plan, including the one referencing a free permit required from the City Forester. As a street tree, the Narrowleaf Cottonwood should be substituted with Bur Oak and/or Honeylocust. The Amur Maple should be substituted with the Bigtooth Maple (Acer grandidentatum), and the Nannyberry should be substituted with Threeleaf Sumac (Rhus trilobata) and Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). A planting detail (attached) should be added to the plan. 1) Will the streetscapes be taken over for maintenance by the City after 2 years (see attached criteria)? If so, then this must be noted on the plan. i�J tN� t1 ''` �A b A- ' 3. Specific comments related to the Plat and Utility Plans are: a) This submittal is not anywhere near Final, and even "Preliminary" is questionable. The Grading & Drainage Plan doesn't show final grading, just existing topography. There is no design for water and sewer facilities. There is, essentially, no information on the storm drainage solutions. No calculations have been provided. Where is detention to occur? How will the water be released into Spring Creek? Street design, that must include a soils report, is not adequate. The drainage plan is extremely poor at this time. b) Tract A should be designated as a "Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle" easement. The Spring Creek Trail should be shown on the plat. c) The grading plan needy to indicate the exact location of the edge of disturbance on -site due to grading, especially along the western edge of the upper tier of lots. Section 29-116(4) of the RF Zoning District in City Code addresses this requirement. d) Provisions to accommodate a 4" gas line must be included in the design of the West Horsetooth Road/Spring Creek bridge. This portion of the bridge design must be approved by Public Service Co. of Colorado. e) There are no easements shown on the plans. The intentions for the open space areas lack clear definition on the Plat. f) Water service will be provided by the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District. The sanitary sewer mains will be maintained by the City. The overall utility plan is OK with the exception of the sewer main that is shown east of Overland Trail and north of Lands Edge Road. This sewer main must be contained within the roadway, not east -' of the asphalt as shown. In addition, construction plans for the off -site sewer main, which must be constructed between the Dixon Creek sewer main and this development, will be needed. d g) A copy of comments from U.S. West is attached. h) The nearest City power is at Horsetooth Court and West Horsetooth Road. The developer will be required to provide off -site easements as necessary to extend power lines (underground) to the site. The bridge design over Spring Creek must be coordinated with Light & Power. Power conduits must be included in the bridge. The developer needs to coordinate water service locations with Light & Power at an early stage in the planning. Light & Power needs an 8' utility easement along local streets, a 15' utility easement along the east side of Overland Trail, and a minimum 10' utility easement along the west side of Overland Trail. 4. General comments are as follows: a) The developer should be aware that Light & Power charges may be higher than usual due to the anticipated trenching through rock, or the developer would need to provide the trenches. b) Please consider the possibility of shifting the southern tier of lots further to the south, to coincide with the south property line, and move Lands Edge Road further to the south. There is concern that Lots 7, 16, and 57 and the street are infringing on the natural drainage area. The area around the natural drainage is more important than the sliver of open space on the south property line. c) Drip or bubbler irrigation should be supplied to all street trees. d) Planting of street trees must be coordinated closely with Public Service Co. of Colorado. No trees may be planted within 4' of any natural gas line. e) The layout of this development could be reconsidered to potentially reconfigure the overall density in the area. Some of the density could be moved from the upper portion of the site to lower areas, thereby causing less disturbance to the significant natural areas. f) The proposal to accommodate the second point of access requirement with arterial streets, both Overland Trail and West Horsetooth Road, is not acceptable to the City. If all buildings are to be sprinkled then it is possible to work with the Poudre Fire Authority on this issue (please see copy of a letter from Warren Jones). This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request. It appears that this item is not ready to take to the Planning and Zoning Board on November 16, 1992; however, please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to enable you to stay on the agenda for the Board hearing: Plan revisions are due October 28, 1992 by 12:00 noon. Please contact me for the number of revisions required for each document. PMT's, renderings, and 8 copies of final revisions (for the Planning and Zoning Board packets) are due November 9, 1992. Final documents (including the signed development agreement, applicable mylars and utility plans) are due November 12, 1992 by 12:00 noon. Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. rS' rely, t v olt Project Planner xc: Kerrie Ashbeck Sherry Albertson -Clark Advance Planning Stormwater Utility Transportation Natural Resources Parks & Recreation Stewart and Associates file/Project Planner