HomeMy WebLinkAboutWESTBROOKE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 3 90H - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)May 26, 2000
Mr. Steve Olt
Project Planner
Community Planning and Environmental Services
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Westbrooke PUD, 2°j Filing — Final
Dear Steve:
Thanks for your recent help with the time issues relating to the Westbrooke PUD, 2°d Filing. We
are resubmitting this project for your review. Please note that several changes have occurred
since the last review as follows:
A regional traffic study has been completed and submitted as part of the Mountain Ridge
Farm 3,d Filing.
2. Seneca Street plans have been completed and submitted as part of the Mountain Ridge
Farm 3,d Filing.
3. Troutman Parkway, the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company Crossing, the
Troutman -Wabash intersection and associated utilities are now part of the Mountain Ridge
Farm 3rd Filing construction plans.
Responses to items summarized in your letter of January 27, 2000 are as follows:
Lorie Diglioni indicates that the street names are acceptable. No action needed.
2. We will be meeting with the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company. Their approval letter
and signatures are forthcoming.
3. We will be working with Matt Baker on the oversizing participation.
4. We have NOT included a pedestrian connection between Westbrooke Drive and Seneca
Street as requested by Doug Moore. I discussed this with Doug and explained that both
the Traffic Division and the School District opposed any pedestrian connection to Seneca
Street due to the potential for mid -block crossing conflicts. Doug was going to discuss this
with staff further.
114 East 5th Street Loveland, CO 80537
Office:970-613-2040 • Fax:970-613-2038 • Toll-free:1-888-404-3612
Mr. Steve Olt
Community Planning and Environmental Services
May 26, 2000
Page Two
5. Zoning comments are addressed as follows:
General note #5 calls for 2 trees per lot. This is intended to satisfy landscape
requirements along the east side of Seneca Street and south side of Troutman
Parkway ONLY. This is consistent with the concepts worked out in the First Filing
and shown on the Landscape Plan.
2. There is not an HOA proposed for this project. Separate covenants will be filed for
this project which addresses fencing and other issues.
3. The street trees are shown to be consistent with the First Filing. There is not
enough width to the Seneca Street section to provide room for a tree lawn.
4. Note #4 has been removed.
5. Note #13 has been removed.
6. Note #5 has been changed to reflect landscaping along the south side of
Troutman Parkway. Landscaping along Seneca is intended to be a no
maintenance design similar to that constructed in the First Filing.
7. The treatment between the walk and the curb along the east side of Seneca Street
and the south side of Troutman Parkway is to be cobble with a weed barrier.
8. Landscape Note #9 has been changed.
6. The Building Inspection Department has provided Codes and Standards information.
7.
a. A single trash hauler will be specified in the covenants.
b. A pedestrian connection has been opposed in the past by the School District and
the Traffic Division.
C. The proposed trail would be along the east side of the PV & LC irrigation ditch.
Since it is not related directly to this site, we were previously asked to remove it
from the drawings.
d. The 2 trees per lot are intended for lots adjacent to arterial street sections only.
e. The design and construction of Seneca Street is part of the Mountain Ridge Farm
3,d Filing submittal.
f. Since this is intended to be a maintenance free area, no vegetation is proposed as
approved with the First Filing.
Mr. Steve Olt
Community Planning and Environmental Services
May 26, 2000
Page Three
g. The wetlands which have developed are part of a construction phasing sequence
in this area and are not considered jurisdictional. Correspondence relating to this
will be forwarded.
h. See g.
i. See g.
j. See g.
k. See g.
I. This is a residential project and no trash receptacles are proposed.
8. Engineering comments prepared by David Stringer have been addressed.
9. Stormwater comments prepared by Donald Dustin have been addressed.
10. We had previously worked out an alignment of the proposed gas line along the north side
of Troutman Parkway. We will pursue this with PSC.
11. Lester Litton has talked to Staff about deferring this report since large quantities of fill
material will be required.
12.
a. The off -site utility easement will be secured by the owners of Mountain Ridge Farm 31d
Filing.
b. Utilities have been added.
c. This stub has been removed.
d. These inverts have been added.
e. The temporary main will be abandoned.
f. This detail has been provided.
g. This detail has been provided.
h. This note has been added.
i. These items have been changed.
13. Mountain Ridge Farm 3rd Filing proceeds this development and will take responsibility for
street and utility improvements with Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway.
14. See 13.
15. See 13.
16. This information has been added.
Mr. Steve Olt
Community Planning and Environmental Services
May 26, 2000
Page Four
17. Calculations have been added.
18. Since there is not an HOA with this project, a tract has not been provided.
19. Easements along Troutman Parkway will be secured by Mountain Ridge Farms 3,d Filing.
20. PV & LC will be providing this information.
21. This approval is being sought by Mountain Ridge Farm 3,d Filing.
22. We agree with this comment.
23. We do not understand this comment.
24. The construction of Seneca Street is being completed Mountain Ridge Farm 3,d Filing.
25. The Army Corp of Engineers has been contacted and the wetlands are notjurisdictional.
26. This has previously been opposed by the School District and the Traffic Division.
27, See 24.
28. We have previously been asked to remove all references to this tract.
29. The PV & LC information has been added to the site plan.
30. A solar ordinance was granted with the preliminary plan.
31. There is not an HOA proposed with this project. Covenants will be filed for this project
separately and provided to future owners on an individual basis.
32. The fencing of the rear of Lots 28 — 34 is intended to be left up to the individual
homeowner as is done in the First Filing.
33. The fence detail has been changed to reflect a 4.5' height. Block columns will be 5' high.
34. We looked at many options but the existing Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway right-of-
ways do not provide for this room. There was considerable discussion relating to this in
the First Filing.
Mr. Steve Olt
Community Planning and Environmental Services
May 26, 2000
Page Five
35. A note has been added.
Please feel free to call me at (970) 207-1970 if you have any questions.
Sincerely, ZI
Couch, P.E.
Cc: Chuck Betters, P & B Partnership