HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRIDGEFIELD PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-05-28Comma _ty Planning and Environmenta_ _,ervices
Planning Department
September 13, 1994
Jon Prouty
Lagunitas Company
3307 South College Avenue, #200
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
Dear Jon,
Staff has reviewed your documents for the Bridgefield P.U.D. -
Preliminary that were submitted to the City on August 22, 1994, and
would like to offer the following comments:
1. Columbine CableVision TV has the following comments to offer:
a) CCTII would like to see all utility easements marked on
the plat map. They would also like to see the open space
along West Prospect Road (west of the entry drive) marked
as a utility easement.
b) CCTV would like to work with the developer on installing
their main lines in a joint trench with U.S. West
telephone or City power. They would also like to see thee
buildings pre -wired with cable and in accordance with a
method that meets their standards.
2. Public Service Company of Colorado has the following comments
to offer:
a) PSC needs a 6" sleeve in each bridge for a gas main
crossing.
b) Easement widths adjacent to rights -of -way and drives need
to be 13' from the back of sidewalks to the rear easement
1 ine: .
c) There is a strong possibility that West Prospect Road
will have to be open cut to extend into this development.
d) Tree planting within 4' of gas lines is prohibited.
e) Private drives and open spaces should be designated as
utility easements.
3. The Post office has no concerns as long as interior drives are
not named.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
4. The "duplexes" appear to be one unit per lot. These are
probably more correctly called 110-lot line attached single
family" dwellings. Separate building permits are required for
each lot.
5. The layout of the development could create addressing
problems.
6. The Poudre Fire Authority has the following comments to offer:
a) Fire hydrants must be located within 400' of all dwelling
units and the hydrants must be capable of 1,000 gallons
per minute with 20 pounds per square inch residual
pressure.
b) The bridge must be constructed to withstand the weight of
fire department apparatus (H6).
c) The streets shown as 34' in width must be a minimum of
36' wide.
d) The proposed emergency access must be constructed of hard
surface, all weather material.
Please contact Mike Pretz, at 221-6570, if you have questions
about these comments.
7. The City Light & Power Department has indicated that they will
require a utility coordination meeting before they can make
any meaningful comments. This project has many of the same
concerns, if not more, than the Indian Hills project.
Clarification is needed on the utility routes. Please contact
Bruce Vogel, at 221-6700, if you have questions about the
electric service comments.
S. The Transportation Department has stated that the parking
requirements and assumptions for this development need to be
evaluated. Also, the street width issues need to be resolved.
9. The developer should schedule an on -site meeting with Tim
Buchanan, the City Forester, to evaluate the existing trees
on -site. Also, the City Forester should be consulted about
what species of trees to use as street trees along West
Prospect Road.
10. Public access is needed to the City -owned open space that is
west of the project adjacent to the Bridges P.U.D.
development. Access should be from West Stuart Street and West
Prospect Road.
11. The Natural Resource Division has the following comments to
offer:
a) The. Division has been, and still is, interested in
acquiring the lower portion of the property (south of the
northerly portion of the Larimer County Canal No. 2 and
north of the Heatheridge pond).
b) If the Division fails to acquire the lowland piece they
will still require a wetland delineation to be conducted
for it as specified in their memo dated July 13, 1994.
They will also require design considerations (i.e.,
native plant landscaping and buffer zones of 30' next to
ditches and 100' next to wetlands) unless it can be shown
that water quality will not be impacted by the
development.
c) Please indicate how public bicycle/pedestrian access may
be provided to the open space around Heatheridge Lake.
d) The south lots, 1 through 5, will not be permitted to be
developed.
Please contact Susie Gordon, at 221-6600, if you have
questions about these natural areas comments.
12. The Engineering Department has the following comments to
offer:
a) A secondary emergency access is required for the portion
of the development south of the Larimer County Canal No.
2 and north of the Heatheridge pond.
b) Definition is needed between the public and private
streets. Currently, the public streets blend into the
private. City Code requires City streets to end in a
publicly dedicated turn -around. A meeting is suggested to
discuss the options.
c) The parking numbers appear to be adequate; however, the
parallel parking areas shown on the plans are 6.33' wide.
This is short of the 7' wide parking variance requested,
8' is the standard and is being suggested.
d) Add a north arrow, scale, and major identifying streets
and sites to the Vicinity Map.
e) Add approximate acres to the legal description.
f) It :is being suggested that the final survey be adjusted.
The Preliminary Plat closes at 11: 2,9301. This is barely
acceptable for urban standards.
g) There are two drafting errors in the boundary.
Please contact Kerrie Ashbeck or Sheri Wamhoff, at 221-6750,
if you have questions about these engineering comments.
13. The proposed five lots between the Larimer County Canal No. 2
and the New Mercer Ditch, to be accessed from West Stuart
Street, cannot be developed. The City purchased an easement
from Keith Sharf in January, 1992 for storm drainage purposes.
There is a statement in this recorded easement to the effect
that "Grantor shall not erect or construct any building or
other structure,". This document is recorded in the Larimer
County Clerk & Recorder's Office under Reception #92004395.
14. A secondary emergency access is required for the 36 lot
portion of the development south of the Larimer County Canal
No. 2 and north of the Heatheridge pond. The Heatheridge
development does not need this emergency access but the
Bridgefield P.U.D. does. Verification of an access easement
agreement with the Heatheridge development must be provided to
the City no later than the revision due date of October 5,
1994.
15. The geometrics of primary access point (containing the center
median) on West Prospect Road are awkward and should possibly
be redesigned.
16. The setback distances of the drives paralleling West Prospect
Road are not adequate. This is especially true in the
northwest corner of the proposed development.
17. There are significant drainage concerns associated with this
development. No preliminary contours were submitted and it is
very difficult to see how the grading will work. Information
must be submitted to the City for review no later than the
revision due date of October 5, 1994 or this item will be
taken off of the agenda for the October 24th Planning and
Zoning Board hearing and continued to a later date.
18. Access to some of the lots seems very awkward (#'s 23, on the
top section, and 34, on the lower section, as examples).
19. There is a recently adopted City Ordinance No. 76, 1994 that
deals with landscape design guidelines and irrigation design
guidelines for developments. The common areas of this
development are subject to the new ordinance, which is
available in the Planning Office.
This completes the review comments at this time. Additional
comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and
reviewing agencies continue to review this request. Please be aware
of the following dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay
on schedule for the October 24, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board
hearing:
******************************************************************
Plan revisions are due no later than the end of the working day,
October 5, 1994. Please contact me for the number of folded
revisions recruired for each document.
PMTIs, renderings, and 8 folded copies of final revisions (for the
Planning and Zoning Board packets) are due by 3:00 p.m. on October
17, 1994.
******************************************************************
Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns
related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with
you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments.
Sincerely,
A
Steve Vota
Project Planner
xc: Ron Phillips, Planning Director
Bob Blanchard, Chief Planner
Kerrie Ashbeck
Advance Planning
Stormwater Utility
Transportation
Parks & Recreation
Natural Resources
file/Project Planner
i
fR
Cof Fart Collins
Comr;..nity Planning and En�,-ironmentu. _)erg ices
Planning Pk! art
ment
February 23, 1995
Jon Prouty
Lagunitas Company
3307 South College
Fort Collins, CO.
Dear Jon,
Avenue, #200
80525
Staff has reviewed your documents for the Bridgefield P.U.D.,
Phases 1 & 2 - Final that were submitted to the City on January 23,
1995, and would like to offer the following comments:
1. The Post Office has indicated that they would appreciate it if
you would select alternate names for the following streets due
to duplications with existing streets:
a. Deer Run Drive
b. Red Fox Way
C. Bridgefield Drive could be a problem because there is a
Bridgefield Drive on the approved Windtrail Park P.U.D.;
however, the developer of Windtrail has been asked to
change that street name in his project.
2. Public Service Company has indicated that the easement width
adjacent to the rights-of-way/drives needs to be such that the
distance from the back of walk to the rear line of the utility
easement is 13' minimum. No trees can be planted within 4' of
gas lines.
3. "Duplex" lots are really zero lot line single family
situations. A separate building permit will be required for
each unit, unless the individual lot is not sold with the
building. Then it can be a duplex.
4. A copy �of the comments received from the Building Inspection
Department is attached to this letter.
5. The Police Department has indicated that the streets Deer Run,
Red Fox, and Bridgefield need to be renamed because these
streets already exist (see Comment 1).
A�,rth � �.�ll����t :�� c�nuc P.�-_ B�,� ; i_! F��rt C�ollin
_�, CO 80�'2-O�8O • ( 03))'2l-o-7
FAX i ;�);i 21-r,)7' MD i 01) 224-hO02
6. The Poudre Fire Authority has indicated that an additional
fire hydrant will have to be located in the vicinity of Red
Fox Way and Bridgefield Drive that is capable of providing
1,000 gallons per minute, with 20 pounds per square inch
residual pressure, fire flows. Also, Deer Run Drive is already
in use in the PFA district and cannot be used as a street name
in this development.
7. The Mapping/Surveying Department has indicated that Deer Run,
Cottontail, and Racoon are street names already used in
Larimer County. This could be a problem for 911 dispatch. What
are the: areas between the lots not marked as streets? They
must be designated as something. A red -lined copy of the
subdivision plat, with additional comments, has been forwarded
to Stewart & Associates.
8. The Light & Power Department has expressed a concern about
what are public streets and what are private drives. There are
street tree and utility coordination issues that still have to
be resolved.
9. The Landscape Plan must contain a general note calling for the
review and approval by the City of any required irrigation
system for the landscape.
10. The pedestrian access to the natural area, at the southwest
corner of project, should be of a hard surface material to
meet the ADA requirements.
11. The Natural Resources Division continues to negotiate with you
to acquire the Phase III portion of this property. The terms
of this agreement are still under discussion.
12. A copy of the comments received from the Stormwater Utility is
attached to this letter.
13. A red -lined copy of the utility plans, with comments from the
Water/Wastewater Department, has been forwarded to Stewart &
Associates. A red -lined copy of the Landscape Plan, with
water/wastewater comments, has been forwarded to Ripley
Associates.
14. A copy of the comments received from the City Forester is
attached to this letter.
15. The ditch companies for the Larimer County Canal No. 2 and the
New Mercer Ditch must be contacted by you to determine if
there are any concerns related to development along the
ditches..
16. The section of the New Mercer Ditch between the Bridgefield
P.U.D. and the Bridges P.U.D. should be labeled on the Site
and Landscape Plans.
17. A phase line between Phases I & II should be shown on the
plans.
18. The difference between the public and private streets must be
clearly, defined on the plans.
This completes the review comments at this time. Additional
comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and
reviewing agencies continue to review this request. With your
consent, this item has been continued from the March Planning and
Zoning Board public hearing to the April Board public hearing.
Please be aware of the following dates and deadlines to assure your
ability to stay on schedule for the April 24, 1995 Board hearing:
Plan revisions are due no later than the end of the working day,
April 5, 1995. Please contact me for the number of folded revisions
required for each document.
PMT,s, renderings, and 8 folded copies of final revisions (for the
Planning and. Zoning Board packets) are due by 3:00 p.m. on April
17, 1995.
Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns
related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with
you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments.
Sin. rely,
S eve Olt
Project Planner
xc: Kerrie Ashbeck
Stormwater Utility
Transportation
Parks & Recreation
file/Project Planner