Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWESTBROOKE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 3 90H - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (4)0. i Current Planning July 1, 1997 Jeff Couch Redpeak Engineering 906 Richmond Drive, Unit#2 Fort Collins, CO.80526 Dear Jeff, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Westbrooke PUD, 2nd Filing - Final that was submitted to the City on May 28, 1997, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This request is being reviewed as a new Final PUD submittal due to the lapse of time since it was first submitted (July 5, 1994) and reviewed. by all City departments and outside agencies. In fact, the request is going through the full initial review/comment and revision review/comment phases of the City's development review process.. 2. Copies of a letter received from Alden V. Hill, the attorney for the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Company, and a comment. sheet from Ed Wendel of the PV&L Canal Company are attached to this letter. 3. A copy of the comments received from Susan Peterson of U.S. West is attached to this letter. 4. Russ Guyton of TCI of Fort Collins (cable television) indicated that he has no problems with your development plans. 5. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office indicated that he has no problems with your development plans. 6. Ken Kirchhoff of the Police Services offered the following comment: • The following name changes are needed: North Creek Court ....... Creek Court already exists Southbrooke Court ...... Brook already exists, there are numerous "South" streets 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 n Willowbrooke Court ..... There are numerous "Willows" already in existence 7. Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Utility plan information should not be contained on the Site Plan. b. A [standard] note must be added to the Landscape Plan that requires completion of the landscaping in public rights -of -way or common areas, or a letter of credit or some form of escrow, prior to issuance of a temporary or permanent Certificate of Occupancy. C. The proposed 6' high fence to be installed at the comer of Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway will need to comply with site distance standards, per Engineering requirements. d. The City will not be the enforcement agency for the 2 trees per lot minimum as specified in General Note 5 on the site Plan. Please contact Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 8. Sharon Getz of the Building Inspection Department indicated that she has no problems with your development plans. 9. Roger Frasco of the Poudre Fire authority indicated that he has no problems with your development plans. 10. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department indicated that he has no problems with your development plans. 11. The Streets Department asked the question ... "Who is going to be responsible for snow removal on the Seneca Street sidewalks?"... This is a collector street and if the homeowners are responsible for snow removal it is going to be difficult to make them aware of their responsibility due to the rear fences creating a visual and physical separation. 12. Laurie D'Aud.ney of the Water Conservation Departmen. t indicated that she has no problems with your development plans. 13. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, offered the following comments: a. Street trees should be located in the parkway between the sidewalk and curb along Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway. This is a requirement of the City's Street Standards. b. The trees need to be labeled with a planting key. C. Standard landscape notes need to be added to the Landscape Plan. Please contact Tim, at 221-6640, ifyou have questions abou t these comments,; 14. Randy Balok of the Park Planning Department stated that. the neighborhood and community park impact fees will be assessed to each dwelling unit, based on the square footage of the unit. 15. Susie Gordon of the Natural Resources Department offered the following comments: 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 Southbrooke Court and Seneca Street would be desirable. 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, "cavem" look on this collector street. d. The Landscape Plan is incomplete. It does not show the "2 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 a.rrangements). This is something that you should discuss with Tim Buchanan to determine if it is appropriate or acceptable. Please contact Susie, at 221-6600, if you have questions about these comments. 16. A copy of a comment letter (addressed to you and dated June 23, 1997) from 'Tim Blandford of the Engineering Department is attached to this'letter. 17. A copy of the comments received from the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. 18. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company stated that they have the same comments as on July 14, 1994, whe6they 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". A copy of the previous comments is attached to this letter. 19. The Engineering Pavement Department stated that a current final soils report will need to be submitted, and 1990 is not_current. The final soils report will need to meet the City's new standards. Please reroute the new soils report. 20. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. Who will be responsible for replacement of temporary utilities when Troutman Parkway is built? Perhaps a meeting is needed to discuss the future utilities. Please call Roger, at 221-6854, to arrange a time. b. Show the fire hydrant on the Landscape Plan at the intersection of Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway. Provide required utility/landscape separations. C. Is the easement for temporary utilities granted by separate document? Provide a copy of the document for our review. d. Typically, sanitary sewer manholes are placed on the centerline of streets. It appears that this could be accomplished easily with this development. e. Provide a detail of the relocation of a 12" blow -off on Troutman Parkway. f. Show and label the existing grade in all profile views. g. See the utility and landscape plans for other comments. Please contact Roger, at 221-6854, if you have questions about these comments. 21. The Mapping Department offered the following comments: a. Curves C25 and C26 in the curve table appear to be incorrect. b. Does the North % of Troutman Parkway need to be dedicated before this plat is filed? r a 11 C. Distances along the centerline of'Westbrooke Drive to the centerline of Southbrooke Court are missing. d. Please show the chord bearing and distance on the outer boundary curve. el.Please be aware of the new requirements regarding monument records. f. The plat should have a note that vacates the temporary cul-de-sac and 20' emergency access as shown on the Westbrooke PUD, 1st Filing plans. Please contact Jim Hoff, at 221-6605, if you have questions about these comments. 22. An easement is needed for the storm sewer to the north and east. 23. There is concern about the relationships of the rear lots lines and fences to the sidewalks and adjacent streets. Troutman Parkway will be an arterial street, Seneca Street is a collector street and their streetscapes are critical to the integrity of the area. A cross-section/detail should be provided for these areas. 24. At what spacing will the brick columns be placed in the fences along Seneca Street and Troutman Parkway? This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies:. Under the new development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The timing is up to the applicant. The revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due by the 4th weekly staff review meeting following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting it .will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision and, if so,. will be. scheduled for the. nearest open date. Planning and Zoning Board public hearings will be held on the 1st and 3rd Thursdays of every month, with a minimum two week notification period prior to the public hearing. A copy of the new review process is attached to this letter.. 0 Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns regarding these comments or if you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. 4Si rely, S eve Project Planner cc: City Engineering City Stormwater Utility City WaterNVastewater City Advance Planning City Forester City Natural Resources City Mapping Chuck Betters, PCB Partnership Project File