The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWESTBROOKE PUD SECOND FILING FINAL - 3 90H - CORRESPONDENCE - TRANSPORTATION ISSUE (4)Services Department August 12, 1996 Jeff Couch Redpeak Engineering 2061 Huntington Circle Ft. Collins, CO 80526 Dear Jeff: On July 16, City staff met with you to discuss allowing access to thip Westbrooke P.U.D. 2nd Filing via existing Wakerobin Lane in lieu of constructing Troutman Parkway to Shields Street, as per -the condition of approval of the Westbrooke P.U.D. preliminary. Development review staff and Eric Bracke, the City traffic engineer have reviewed your request along with the traffic stridy addendum prepared by Matt Delich. I have relayed the City's position over the phone to you and Eric and Matt have also discussed the matter. The purpose of this letter is to formalize the City's position on the improvements which must be completed in order for Westbrooke P.U.D. 2nd Filing to develop, as well as those portions of the Mountainridge Farm development which lie west of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. As discussed in the original traffic study and in my letter of June 25 to you, the Shields Street/Wakerobin Lane intersection operates below acceptable levels of service, and Troutman Parkway is the connection needed to serve the area. In recent. discussions with Eric Bracke, this is still the case. Troutman Parkway is a collector street and will be signalized in the future. Wakerobin Lane and Wabash Street are both local streets not intended to carry collector volumes nor to be signalized. Therefore, as determined at the time of final approval of the Westbrooke P.U.D. preliminary,lth..e City requires that Troutman Parkway connect to Shields Street before the remaining lots in the P.U.D. can develop and before the Mcuntainridge Farm P.U.D. west of the ditch can develop.. An alternative that the City would consider would be the connecti from the P.U.D. north to Horsetooth Road. The property owners all currently seem to be interested in development and all benefit connection.. Seneca is also a collector street. Such a proposal w reviewed based on a traffic impact study which must include inter consideration of traffic volumes from the surrounding area, not ju generated by the adjacent developments. i of Seneca Street �rved by that street :)m the street Ad need to be action analysis and those trips 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 You also asked about the possibility of finalizing the P.U.D. , utility plans and development agreement for the 2nd Filing with the condition that no improvements can be constructed until Troutman Parkway can be built with the development. Our legal staff would need to determine if we can give final approval to a project which cannot be built until a third party agrees to dedicate right-of-way. That is, the ability for someone to construct the necessary off -site improvements to build the project depends entirely on the willingness of a third party to dedicate right-of-way and easements. Currently, we do not approve projects which cannot obtain a letter of intent for, dedication of off - site right -of way and easements nor do we record plats for projects without executed deeds of dedicaticn for rights -of -way and/or easements.. Also, keep in mind that utility plans expire if nothing is built within 3 years and the development agreement would likely need to be amended or nevised completely by the time development occurred. If you have further questions, please call me at 221-6750. Thank Sincerely, Kerrie Ashbeck Civil Engineer II cc: File Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer Mike Herzig, DevelopmEnt Engineering Manager Steve Olt, Project Planner OR DATE: 6 1)byi-: 5tormwater PROJECT- &Ae5,f bro o k e ;x PLANNER: An comments must be received by: 0 No Problems Aa 7tmaelgle or Concerns (see below or attached) bi response fo r each of hT f ouowmg comments must be su ragmed plans and report, at time of project resubmittal.. The respon revisions s or clarifications completed in result of these comments. If submitted with the resubmittal, the project will be returned to the ap review. This procedure will help the review process become more e Thank you. 1. The detention and ouffill for this development is in the Mountain,R detention facility. Therefore, no building permits for Westbrooke 2nd the regional detention pond is approved, built, and certified. RESPONSE: td, with the must note any pones are not ;ant without further ient and effective. regional be issued until 2. More details are needed for the sizing of the proposed storm sewer!, A detailed hydraulic analysis is needed for the entire storm sewer system to determine the 100-year RGL. The analysis should consider all losses and tailwater conditions! Please plot the 100-year HGL on the storm sewer profile. RESPONSE: Date: signature. 'lal 4;-Z, M EI CHEMNIF YOU WISH TO RE FIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS E3 STTE Too( '54Pq--,f LANDSCAPE gcy( UMM 3. Emergency overflow swales are needed downstream of the sump inlets. Please provide cross -sections of these swales. The swales must be sized for the 100-year assuming the inlets to be 100% clogged. The easements must also be sized for this condition. . RESPONSE: 4. The street flows from basins Tl and T2 must not drain into the PV&L. These flows must be intercepted and conveyed to the detention pond. RESPONSE: 5. The fencing restriction detail and notes for lots 3442 should be added to the plat. RESPONSE: 6. A drainage easement is needed for the Swale behind lots 3442. The 100-year top - width and freeboard of the swale must be within a drainage easement. RESPONSE: 7. Please provide a drainage summary table with basin areas, runoff -coefficients, and design point flows. Please clarify the basin divides. RESPONSE: 8. Please provide supporting documentation and calculations for the design of the culvert crossing. Is the box culvert sized to handle the irrigation flows and any drainage flows in the ditch? Ditch company approval is needed, prior to approval. RESPONSE: 9. The time of concentration calculations assumed street flows to be the same as overland flow. The time of concentration must be calculated using the overland flow equation for lot drainage and using Figure 3-2 of the UDFCD manual for street/channel flow. Also, a 1% slope was assumed for lot drainage. The minimum lot slope is 2%. Please use this slope in the Tc calculations and revise the grading plan to meet this requirement. RESPONSE: 10. Please label, on sheet 3, the type and size of all existing and proposed inlets and storm sewers. RESPONSE: 11. More details are needed for the sizing of the proposed inlets. Please provide all supporting assumptions, calculations, and nomographs. How much ponding will there be in the street? RESPONSE: 1 12. Please provide a cross-section of Troutman Parkway just west of Wabash. The cross- section should show the street section, the sidewalk, the limits of the ROW, and all subsurface utilities (existing and proposed). Please call out the separation between each of the utility lines. The proposed storm sewer must be within the right-of-way. RESPONSE: 13. Please calculate historical runoff to the PV&L Canal. It must be shown that the proposed drainage into the canal is less than historic. RESPONSE: 14. Please show more details of the proposed lot grading. There drainage. All lot drainage must be directed to side lot swales. RESPONSE: 15. Permanent erosion protection is needed for the back yard swale into the canal. RESPONSE: Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional review t be no cross lot lots 3442 to outlet