Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWESTBROOKE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 3 90H - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2)and Current Planning Jeff Couch TEAM Engineering 114 East 5"' Street Loveland; CO. 80537 Dear Jeff, Staff has reviewed your revisions and documentation for the Westbrooke PUD, 2nd Filing - Final that were submitted to the City on May 26, 2000, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. The Technical Services Department offered the following a. The subdivision plat needs to have the new "plat statements" added. b. South Creek Court and West Creek Court may create naming problems for Emergency Services. Please contact Jim Hoff, at 221-6588, if you have questions about these comments. 2_. A copy of a letter (with Revision Comment. Sheet attached) from Alden V. Hill, the _attorney for the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company, is attached. to this letter. 3. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. If possible, bicycle/pedestrian connections should be made from the cul- de-sacs to Seneca Street. The applicant and City staff should discuss this issue further. b. Enhanced crosswalks across Seneca Street, at the street intersections, is being recommended. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221 i6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 ® ® 6 4. Ward Stanford of Traffic Engineering stated that he still has concerns about this development request. Please contact Ward, at 221-6820, to discuss his concerns. 5. A copy of the comments received from Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department is attached to this letter. Please contact the Zoning Department, at 221-6760, and talk to Jenny if you have questions about her comments. 6. Kim Kreimeyer, the Environmental Planner, offered the following comments: Some of the previous comments on this project have not been addressed. a. The existing wetlands on -site must be mapped. b. The wetlands must be shown on the Site Plan; Landscape Pl.an., and utility plans, C. Proof of compliance with all Federal regulations must be demonstrated. d. The City has a requirement that a Mitigation Plan for any disturbed wetlands be submitted for review. Please contact Kim, at 221-6641, if you have questions about these comments. 7. A copy of the comments received from Tim Blandford of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red - lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Tim, at 221- 6750, if you have questions about his comments. 8.. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans & reports that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Donald, at 221- 2053, if you have questions about his comments. 9. A copy of the comments received from Jeff. Hill of the WaterMastewater Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red- lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Jeff, at 221- 6674, if you have questions about these comments. The following comments and concerns were expressed a the weekly staff meeting on June 21, 2000: Engineering (Tim. Blandford) 10. The same subdivision plat was resubmitted without revisions as requested.. ® 0 11. Off -site construction and grading easements are needed. 12. ADS pipe, as shown on the utility plans, is not allowed in City right-of=way. 13. The design for Troutman Parkway submitted with this development request does not match the street design submitted with the Mountain Ridge Farms development request. 14. The Troutman Parkway design submitted with this development request does not show how the street ties into the existing grades to the east, at the ditch. 15. If this development wants to proceed before the Mountain Ridge Farms projects then the design of one of the streets to the north or east (Troutman Parkway or Seneca Street) must be completed with this development.. 16. The Westbrooke PUD, 2nd Filing development request .must submit its own Transportation Impact Study (TIS) and not continue to use the Mountain Ridge Farms TIS. l 17. What type of crosswalks are being proposed at the TroutmaIn Parkway & Seneca Street intersection? 18. If bicycle/pedestrian walks are provided between. the cul-de=sacs and Seneca Street then crosswalks should be provided on Seneca Street. Stormwater (Basil._Hamdan). 19. The overflow from Johnson Elementary School is being swales. This overflow water should stay in the streets. D 21. The drainage swale along the rear of Lots 34 through 41 not in the private backyards.. The applicant has not respc comment. 22. An off -site easement to the north, for the pipe into the development, is still needed. into backyard s to be in a "tract to this previous Ridge 23. The applicant did not respond to many previous comments. This development request is not yet ready to schedule for a Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. At least one more round of review is necessary and; a pre -submittal meeting should be held between the applicant and City staff. Natural Resources (Kim Kreimeyer) 24. The applicant has not responded to previous com.menfs 25. The wetlands on -site must be mapped and shown on the development plans. 26. There are "created" wetlands on the property (in the area of Lots 16, 17, 22, and 23). The applicant must submit something to the City showing that the Army Corps of Engineers does not have comments or concerns. 27. A wetland Mitigation Plan must be submitted to the City for review. Planning 28. The City's outstanding concerns are very significant. The applicant and City staff should meet as soon as possible to try and get the development proposal on track for a public hearing. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Due to significant issues, another round of review is necessary. Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90 day plan revision submittal time -frame mandated by the City. The 90 day turnaround period begins on the date of the comment letter (July 3, 2000) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. Please contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions or concerns regarding these comments or if you would lii.ke to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Sincerely, Awe,&F Steve Olt Project Planner cc: City Engineering City Stormwater Utility City WaterMastewater City Zoning City Traffic Operations City Transportation Planning City Natural Resources/Environmental Planning Chuck Betters, PCB Partnership Project File #3-90H