HomeMy WebLinkAboutWESTBROOKE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 3 90H - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (3)and Environmental
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
January27, 2000
Jeff Couch
TEAM Engineering
114 East 51' Street
Loveland, CO. 80537-5054
Dear Jeff,
Staff has reviewed your revisions and documentation for the Westbrooke PUD, 2nd
Filing - Final that were submitted to the City on December 22-, 1999, and would like to
offer the following comments:
1 Lorie Diglani with the L.arimer Emergency Telephone Authority said that the
proposed street names in this development are acceptable.
2. A copy of a letter received from Alden V. Hill, the attorney for the Pleasant
.Valley & La.ke Canal Company, is attached to this letter.
3. Matt Baker of the City's Street Oversizing stated that this development is
responsible for street oversizing participation in Troutman Parkway and the
sidewalk along Seneca Street.
4. Doug Moore of the Advance Planning Department stated that there should be
a pedestrian walk between Westbrooke Drive and Seneca Street to provide
better pedestrian access to Johnson Elementary School and Webber Junior High
School from this development. This could occur at the end of one of the cul-de-
sacs, preferably South Creek Court.
5. A copy of the comments received from representatives of the Zoning
Department is attached to this letter. Please contact the Zoning Department, at
221-6760, and talk to Jenny, Gary, or Peter if you have questions about these
comments.
6. Rick Lee of the Building_ Inspection Department offered the attached Codes
and Standards.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
7. Kim Kreimeyer, the Environmental Planner, offered the following comments:
Comments on this project from the June 25, 1997 comment sheet that
appear to have not been addressed.
a. Please specify the use of a single trash hauler in your neighborhood
covenants.
b. The project needs more "porosity" (interconnectivity) for pedestrians and
bicyclists. A public pathway connecting South Creek Court and Seneca.
Street should be included.
C. If the Parks Department is planning on providing a trail along the Pleasant
Valley & Lake Canal, then fences on the adjoining property owners rear
lot lines (Lots 28 - 34) should be medium high, split rail to integrate them
into the ditch as a "design feature". This same, treatment. would be .better
along Seneca Street also, to eliminate the walled, "cavern" look. on this
collector street.
d. The Landscape Plan is incomplete. It does not show the 42 trees per lot
minimum" for all lots.
e. Could brick or contrasting pavers be used for the crosswalk areas at the
Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway intersection?
f. The developer should plant shrubs or ground cover in the cobblestone
areas between sidewalks and curbs along Seneca Street and Troutman
Parkway (the areas won't necessarily have to be irrigated, depending on
plant selection and maintenance arrangements). This is something that
you should discuss with Tim Buchanan to determine if it is appropriate or
acceptable.
Comments as of January 20, 2000.
g. Due to the lapse in time for this project, wetlands have developed on this
site..
h. It appears that the drainage through the wetland area will be piped with
this project. If the wetlands are disturbed, filled or altered in any way, the
City of Fort Collins requires mitigation for the loss or disturbance of any
wetland.
i. The developer will need to have the wetland mapped to determine the
size, and will need to contact the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to
determine if the COE will require any permits for this project.
a
j. The City of Fort Collins will need copies of all applicable permits for our
files.
k. The wetlands must be shown on the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and utility
plans.
I. Please incorporate recycling into the design of the trash receptacle (see
attachment for dimensions and Layout).
Please contact Kim, at 221-6641, if you have questions about these comments.
8. A copy of the comments received from David Stringer of the Engineering_
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red=
I ined plans that are being forwarded to the appl.i.cant. Please contact David, at
221-6750, if you have questions about his comments.
9. 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.
10. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company stated that they have the same
comments as on July 14, 1994, when they previously reviewed the project, in
regard to fence/trees along the south side of Troutman Parkway. It. is important
that PSC gas mains do not get "fenced in."..
11. The Engineering Pavement Department stated that a new soils report will need
to be submitted with new tests as per the current City standards:. The report
submitted is dated 1990 and is not current. Resubmit the required number of
copies of the soils report to the Current Planning Department. as soon as
possible.
12. Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments:
a. Provide a copy of the necessary off -site utility easement for review.
b. Show all water and sewer lines on the Landscape Plans and provide
required utility/landscape separations.
C. A 2' stub is the maximum allowable extension from a manhole or the
sanitary sewer main must terminate at a manhole.
d. List all proposed and existing inverts on the sanitary sewer profiles.
e: The existing temporary water main in the Troutman Parkway alignment
must be abandoned prior to extension of Troutman Parkway.
f. Provide a complete detail specific for the relocation of the existing_ Water
main blow -off.
g. Provide a drop manhole detail with the next submittal of the plans.
h. Install sanitary sewer in steel casing at the ditch crossing.
i. See the red -lined utility plans for other comments.
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
January 19, 2000:
Engineering _(David_ Stringer)
13. This development is responsible for the construction of Seneca Street from the
existing end of pavement all the way to West Horsetooth Road, to the north., if no
other development precedes this one (regarding actual construction schedule).
14. This development is responsible for the preliminary design of Troutman Parkway
to 1,000' east of the Westbrooke PUD, 2nd Filing northeast property corner.
15. All of the notes on the plans referring to "built by others is not acceptable if the
facilities are to serve this project.
Stormwater (Basil Hamdan)
16. More information is needed about.the potential storm drainage into the Pleasant.
Valley & Lake Canal. The historic flow rates are needed and. they need to be
less.
17. There are lots of calculations missing dealing with the hydrology and rip -rap.
18. The drainage swale along the rear of Lots 34 through 41 needs to be in a "tract",
not in the private backyards.
19. An off-s.ite easement to the north, into the Mountain Ridge development, is
needed.
s
` I
20. A letter is needed from the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Ditch Company stating
that they will approve the utility plans for this development. They must also sign
the utility plans.
21. The Pleasant.Valley & Lake Canal Ditch Company must agree to the storm
sewer crossing of the ditch.
22. This development request is not yet ready to schedule fora Planning and Zoning
Board public hearing. Atleastone more round of review is necessary.
Natural Resources (Kim Kreimeyer)
23. Smaller fences (than the proposed 5' high wood fence) should be provided along
the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal and Seneca Street.
24. The pedestrian crosswalks at Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway should be
enhanced with brick or contrasting pavers.
25. There are "created" wetlands on. the property (in the area of Lots 16, 17, 22, and
23). The Amiy Corps of Engineers shou_Id be contacted to determine if they are
jurisdictional. It may be necessary to preserve or mitigate for these wetlands.
Transportation Planning (Kathleen Reavis)
26. At least one pedestrian connection should be made from the cukde=sass on the
west side of Westbrooke Drive to Seneca Street.. This would provide better, more
direct connectionsto the two schools on the west side of Seneca Street.
27. The crosswalks at the intersection of Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway
should be enhanced, possibly with the crosswalk on Seneca Street being raised.
28. Is the proposed future trail along the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal going to be
on the east of west side of the canal? Should this development be responsible
for its share of the construction of the `regional" trail, as the Mountain Ridge
development is going to be?
Planning
29. Clearly show the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal on the Site Plan.
30. Was a variance to the Solar Orientation, Ordinance granted with the Westbrooke
PUD, Preliminary plan?
31. Some of the General Notes on the Site Plan are conflicting. Will there or won't.
there be a Homeowner's Association with this development?
32. The fencing along the rear of Lots 28 through 34, adjacent to the Pleasant Valley
& Lake Canal, should be of a low, open design.
33. The fencing along the rear of the lots backing up to Seneca Street and Troutman
Parkway should be the same as the existing fence along the rear of the lots in
the Westbrooke PUD, 1' Filing... The detai l. on the Site and Landscape Plans is
OK (brick columns and wood fence) but the height of the existing fence is 4.5',
not 5'. The new fence should be the same.
34. Is there any way to get a 2' — 3' separation between the fences along Seneca
Street and Troutman Parkway and the sidewalk, for safety reasons?
35. The Landscape Plan must identify who will put the proposed trees in and when.
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 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 orifyou would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments.
S' rely,
S eve It
Project Planner
cc: City Engineering
City Stormwater Utility
City Water/Wastewater
City Advance Planning
City Transportation Planning
City Natural Resources/Environmental Planning
Chuck Betters, PCB Partnership
Project File #340H