The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRAKE PARK SECOND - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-07-31#198-77 Drake Park P.U.D., Second Filing Final Plat and Plans Background On November 5, 1973 the Planning and Zoning Board favorably discussed the "pre -application" (preliminary) plan for the 11 acre Drake Park site. (See attachment). At that time, the proposal was for a combined residen- tial -commercial P.U.D. The residents of South Meadowlark Heights at that time were quite concerned about the high-rise (six story) condominiums proposed for the south part of the plan. Meetings between the developer on the residents and revisions to the plan mitigated most objections of local residents. The first filing(north 2/3 of the sitd) was subsequently approved and is partially completed. The second filing now being submitted includes substantial changes from the approved preliminary. There are no residential units being pro- posed; rather the remainder of the site is planned to be developed in a manner similar to the first filing with non -retail commercial uses, such as offices, restaurants, clinics, etc. (See attached developer's statement). The traffic circulation pattern has also been changed. Land Use Breakdown. 2nd / Filing Total areas . . . . . . . . . . . 3.69 acres Building envelopes . . . . . . . 8 (max) Floor area . . . . . . . . 67,000 sq. ft. Landscaping & walks . . . . . . . 74 acres Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 1/254 sq. ft. Coverage Building . . . . . . . . . . . 42% Landscaping & walks . . . . . . 20% Parking & drives . . . . . . . 38% Entire Develovment 11.47 acres 13 177,000 sq. ft. 1.54 776 1/228 35% 20% 45% Page 2 - #198-77 Drake Park P.U.D., Second Filing Final Plat and Plans Comments While the :staff has no serious objections to the deletion of residential uses from the plan, the change to traffic circulation and general layout appears to be somewhat problematic. Specific staff comments are: 1. The existing development in Drake Park is a good example of workable shared parking. While the total number of spaces provided is well below what would be required in an R-H subdivision, the parking demands generated by the respected uses peak at different hours during the day. The proposed second filing also provides substantially less parking than would ordinarily be required. It is not readily apparent that the eventual uses of this section of the site will be able to make effective use of shared parking. Either proposed uses should be ascertained, parking should be increased or the maximum square footage should be reduced. 2. The long parking lot behind lots 11, 12 and 13 not only is a circulation problem, creating a potentially serious bottleneck, but is contrary to a clause in the P.U.D. ordinance which limits the maximum number of spaces in an unbroken parking lot. This situation can conceivably be resolved by opening the lot into the existing adjacent parking area to the east. 3. The proposed location of the driveway onto Redwing Road could cause serious safety and drainage problems due to the topography and sight liner at that point. There is an existing, more acceptable curbeut north of the proposed driveway. 4. There does not appear to be adequate back-up space in the back to back perpendicular parking areas. 5. The developer will be required to participate (25%) in the cost of a traffic light at the Drake and Redwing intersection. 6. The Fire Department has cited the need for a hydrant on the southwest part of the site. 7. Pedestrian circulation between and among the building clusters should be addressed. 8. If detailed landscape plans are to be submitted on a "per lot" basis, this procedure should be noted on the P.U.D. plan. 9. The general level of landscaping in some of the parking areas appears to be inadequate. 1.0. Restrictions on signs and building heights and minimum distances between buildings should be noted on the plan. 11. The I,arimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigation Company has raised questions relating to the relationship of this plan to the canal. (see attached letter) Page 3 - #198-77 Drake Park P.U.D., Second Filing Final Plat and Plans 12. Technical comments of the City Arborist. 13. Legal instruments regarding landscape installation and maintenance must be submitted. Recommendation The staff feels that the above problems are substantial, but not insurmountable. The staff recommends approval with the condition that all the above comments be resolved. ECE N � WILLIAM C. STOVER SEp 6 1977 ATTORNEY AT LAW UNITED BANK BUILDING -SUITE 315 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 - P. O. BOX 523 0ARY:Ci:iSA►UM 482-3664 A$'' Hn August 30, 1977 AREA CODE303 Drake Associates, Ltd. 333 West Drake Fort Collins., Colorado 80521 RE: Drake Park PUD, Second Filing, Final Plat and Plans No. 198-77 Dear Barry: I realize that this letter will probably arrive while you are out-of-state, but I needed to comment to you concerning the above -captioned matter. 0 As we discussed the other day, it is absolutely essential for The Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company, and may be advantageous to you, to adjust the borders of your Drake Park Subdivision prior to any final plat approval. D We must preserve our access to the ditch for maintenance purposes on this stretch of the ditch. Failure to maintain the ditch here could result in disastrous flooding to your development since it is below the ditch level. Again, let me propose that we have Dick Rutherford draw the legal descriptions and that we exchange quit claim deeds giving the ditch company ten (10') feet along the ditch banks and your development the rest, which would result in increased square footage to you. I am advised by Glen Johnson, President of the ditch company, that the problem is not serious on that part of the -land owned by Canino, though we should, in time, formalize a similar exchange of deeds with him. Again, from the standpoint of your proposal before the City Planning and Zoning, it is imperative that our right-of-way and access be protected before your planning obtains City sanction so that a disaster will not occur in the future. Very truly yours, WCS:sl William C. Sto r, Secretary cc: Mr. Glen A. Johnson City Engineer, City of Fort Collins Pl_:nnina nnr? r: