Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARTHFIRE PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL ..... ROUND OF REVIEW 8 - 31-95E - CORRESPONDENCE -Transportation Planning 4 Issue Contact: Mark Jackson Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Yours Truly, *SVE OLT City Planner 7 of 7 12 Issue Contact. Sheri Wamhoff Utility Plans Sheet 22 - shows CR13 tying into Douglas Road - an improved Douglas Road not existing Douglas Road. The plans that are currently in for review and approval for Douglas Road improvements do not include this intersection. Therefore need to show these improvements in this set if they are to be done OR show how CR 13 improvements tie into existing Douglas Rd. The two additional sheets that were included that show this intersection - if they are to be included in this set they need to be numbered as a part of this set. 13 Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Utiltiy Plans Detail sheet - See comments on the mid -block ramp. Natural Resources 14 Issue Contact: Doug Moore Showy Prairie Gentian - The applicant will provided a letter to the Natural Resources Department explaining that the stormwater runoff leaving the proposed drainage easements into one of the areas were the plants have been seen growing will be no greater than the two year historic release rate, and that no construction will occur in the area. I meet with the applicant, his Attorney and the City Attorney on June 26, 2001, where the applicant agree to provide this information within the next two weeks. 15 Issue Contact: Doug Moore Interpretive Signage- • The Natural Resource Department agrees with the applicant that because the circumstances of the location of the trail it would be inappropriate to place the interpretive sign previously requested, so the Natural Resource Department is no longer requesting the sign. Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque 1. Please remember that the pending easements included with this submittal must be in final form and signed before a final hearing on this project can be given. Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque 2. Please provide easement and riprap to include end of flow path for south swale that flows into swale F-F on sheet 30. 6 of 7 10 11 Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff This project will also not be taken to hearing until the plans for Douglas Road are completed and approved. You asked why this could not be taken to hearing as you are working on a solution to the off -site improvements. I am not willing to go in front of Planning and Zoning Board and the neighbors and discuss how and when this project is going to have the off -site improvements satisfied until I know that this will occur and how it is to occur. Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Plat - Update the water supply and storage approval note. I think the attorneys are still discussing this. I have written in what has been suggested by the City Attorney. Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Plat ? Provide reception Vs for existing/off site easements that do not have them listed yet when these are obtained. Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Utility Plans Update the water supply and storage approval note. I think the attorneys are still discussing this. I have written in what has been suggested by the City Attorney. This note was deleted completely. What is up? They need to sign the plans and we need to. agree onthe language. Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Utility Plans Showing the outfall pipes cutting across the corner of lot 47 and not extending under the path. Was this easement processed? If so by who? Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff Utility Plans Need to indicate the inlet locations on Town Center Drive. Per section 1.02.03.06.e need a vertical curve for both the flowline and the centerline if the grade change is greater than 1 %. It appears that is what is happening here, therefore a vertical curve is needed. Or need additional information on what the grades going into the inlets is that can show that it is within standards. 5 of 7 Engineering Issue Contact: Sheri Wamhoff ? All off. site easements and/or row are needed prior to scheduling of this project for a final hearing. EASEMENTS and ROW needed - 1) row for CR13 - to be dedicated to the county 2) Utility easement adjacent to CR13 - to be dedicated to the county. 3) grading easement east of tract E and north of Hearthfire Drive. 4) grading easement as well as drainage easement on the Water Supply and Storage Property south of the southwest corner of the site. 5) construction easement for construction of the retaining wall on lot.48. Easements being dedicated to the county need to be submitted to the county for acceptance. I will need indication from the county that they have been received prior to scheduling a hearing. - - - Response to this was "All easements except for the construction easement noted in item #5 above have been provided to date. For construction purposes of the retaining wall on lot 48, an easement has been added to the plans. The easement is now noted as Temporary Retaining Wall Construction Easement'." - - - I have reviewed my file and I have not received any signed easements ready for processing. I have draft copies of the row and easement to be dedicated to the county (items #1 and #2 above), but have not gotten conformation from the county that they have been received and processed - nor have the reception numbers for these been added to the plat. I have no record of even seeing a draft of the grading easement needed north of Hearthfire Drive (item #3). 1 did receive a draft agreement from the Water Supply and Storage Company of which I have a copy of a letter that Paul Eckman wrote in response. I haven't received anything more regarding this issue and this was an agreement not the easement dedications that have been asked for (item #4). It should be noted that the latest submittal now shows additional grading on the Water Supply and Storage Property south of Tract C. An agreement can provide permission to enter the property and do grading, but we need easements dedicated to the City for the drainage flows that cross the property. I did receive a draft of the easement for construction of the retaining wall on lot 48. This is only a draft and not a signed final document. Within the responses to my comments it was indicated that the outfall pipes across lot 47 have "been addressed previously by separate document, and is identified on this plans set as drainage easement.". It is now being shown as a drainage easement, but has it been dedicated as a drainage easement? This has not been processed by Engineering, if it has been done who did it? All off site easements and /or row are needed signed and in the final format ready for filing are needed prior to scheduling this project for hearing. Please note the dedication document needs to include the grantees name and address. I have attached comments on the draft easement submitted for #5 as well as a copy of standard easement language and process. 4of7 22 Issue Contact. Steve Olt The Technical Services (Mapping) Department offered the following comments: a. The legal description and outside boundary do close. b. The street name "Town Center Way" is unacceptable. C. What is the "North County Road 13 Annexation"? d. Why does Lot 1 have building setbacks shown? e. On the Final Plat, please remove all of the Revision Notes. f. The Vested Rights Statement is not needed. 3of7 21 Issue Contact: Steve Olt The following comments were expressed at the Staff review meeting on Wednesday, June 27th: Engineering - .1. The big thing is still the required easements. The City has not yet received the final, signed easements. 2. Work is still being done on the required Douglas Road plans. They are in the City for review and comments are due to the applicant on July 11, 2001. 3. The Water Supply & Storage note on the subdivision plat needs to be updated. 4. The signature block for Water Supply & Storage has been taken off the utility plans. This signature block needs to be put back on the plans. 5. The different street plans appear to be inconsistent with one another. Stormwater - 1 . The City still needs the final, signed easements that are required. 2. The affected ditch company's approval and signature block must be provided on the applicable plans. 3. The permanent easement(s) for the outfall swale(s) is needed. 4. What is the purpose of the 2-rail white vinyl fence along Town Center Way, adjacent to Lots 25 & 26? This could have some affect on the storm drainage in this area. 2of7 L STAFF PROJECT REVIEW RICHARD'S LAKE DEVELOPMENT CO Date: 6/29/01 Pinecrest Planning & Design 4225 Westshore Way FORT COLLINS CO 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for HEARTHFIRE PUD, 2ND FILING #31-95E, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Current Planning 16 Issue Contact: Steve Olt Why is a 2-rail white vinyl fence being proposed along each side of Town Center Way, adjacent to Lots 25 & 26? Is this something that the developer wants? This is not a City requirement. If it is something that the developer really wants then how will the 2 lot owners be made aware of the requirement? They probably will want to put 6' high solid fences along those property lines. 17 Issue Contact: Steve Olt The street name Town Center Way is a conflict and needs to be changed. 18 Issue Contact: Steve Olt What is the "North County Road 13 Annexation"? If referenced on the plans (as it is on the Site Plan), there needs to be a Recording or Reference # of some sort. The east 1/2 (only) of County Road 13 was annexed into the City with the Country Club North Second Annexation. The City does not have any record of the "North County Road 13 Annexation", by separate document or anything else. 19 Issue Contact. Steve Olt There is a portion of the landscaped berm in Tract E that extends into Lot 1. This should not really be. That lot owner will probably want to fence in the entire lot, which could be somewhat difficult and strange with the landscaped berm encroaching. 20 Issue Contact: Steve Olt Please see copies of the red -lined Site and Landscape Plans for additional Current Planning comments. 1 of 7 xc: Engineering Stormwater Utility Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Natural Resources Richard's Lake Development Company Shear Engineering Frederick Land Surveying Project File #31-95E v Commui.__y Planning and Environmental , vices Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins July 3, 2001 PINECREST Planning & Design LLC c/o Thomas J. Dugan 4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Tom, Staff has completed a review of your revisions for the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing.- Final that were submitted to the City on June 4, 2001. A copy of the STAFF PROJECT REVIEW comment letter is attached. The most significant outstanding issues are centered around the necessary off -site easements, the necessary Douglas Road improvements plans, and Water Supply & Storage approval and signature blocks on the appropriate plans. Another full round of review may not be necessary; however, the stated issues must be resolved before the item can be placed on a Planning and Zoning Board public hearing agenda. Also, this development proposal is still subject to the City's 90-day turnaround period (as set forth in the Land Use Code)that begins on the date of the comment letter prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case the date is 7/03/01. The outstanding issues must be resolved so that the item can be scheduled for public hearing or revisions re -submitted with the 90 day period. You may contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions about these comments or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss them. Sincerely, e.&k- Steve Olt Project Planner 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 22"1-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020