HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOX SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH COLLEGE SHOPS - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2012-01-31PLANNING DIVISION EXT. 655
December 8, 1981
Mr. Kurt Reed
KDR, Inc.
215 West Oak, Suite 720
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Kurt:
The site plan for South College Shops should be revised as follows:
1. Landscape plan should clearly indicate plant materials. Trees and
shrubs are identified by symbols but there is no way of telling what
variety is planned for specific locations.
2. "Plantings" legend should differentiate existing and new. The number
of planting indicated on the revised plan has not changed since the
November 5, 1981 submittal. Can this be true?
3. I would suggest that the variety of trees along the south side of
the proposed building be chosen for their high shading characteristics
during the summer and their ability to allow maximum sun penetration
during the winter. Honey locust is not a good variety for these
purposes.
Revisions to the plans reflecting the above comments should be delivered to this
office no later than Friday, December 11, 1981 (5 copies). Also, on Monday,
December 14, 1981, 8-2"xll" reductions of all plans and colored renderings
should be submitted. If you should have any questions regarding the above,
please contact me and I will arrange any necessary meetings with City staff.
-Sincerel ,
Joe Fr nk
Senio Planner
JF/fsr
cc: Ken Waido, Acting Planning Director
Josh Richardson, Development Engineer
1.1 I T Ur rUK I LULLIN5 r.U. tsuA 35U, rUK I LULLIN,, CULOKADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220
PLANNING DIVISION EXT. 655
November 18, 1981
Mr. Kurt Reed
KDR,Inc.
215 W. Oak, Suite 720
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Kurt:
The staff has reviewed the application for preliminary planned unit develop-
ment of the Amendment to South College Shops PUD and would offer the following
comments:
1. The existing retail building adjacent to the proposed addition is ser-
viced by 3/4" water service which may not provide adequate pressure and
flow for the addition. Applicant should provide evidence to justify the
adequacy of this line.
2. The staff would recommend the direction of the parking bays along the
south side of the proposed addition be reversed in direction.
3. Additional landscaping in parking lot is recommended. See me for
details.
4. The applicant should justify location and number of handicapped spaces
being provided. Plan should indicate location of motorcycle spaces.
5. If offices are proposed for addition, this land use should be indicated
on the site plan.
6. Architectural elevations of addition should be submitted.
7. Landscape plan should indicate treatment as was originally approved.
Landscape plan does not comply with information requirement for final
plan of the PUD regulations.
8. Building envelope lines and distances of building envelope to two
platted property lines should be indicated.
9. The staff questions the points you have taken on the Point Charts you
submitted. I would recommend we meet as soon as possible to review
these charts.
M'r. ~Kurt Reed
KDR, Inc.
November 18, 1981
Page Two
n
Revisions to the plans reflecting the above comments should be delivered to
this office no later than Monday, December 7, 1981 (5 copies). Also, on
Monday, December 14, 1981, 8-j" x 11" reductions of all plans and colored
renderings should be submitted. If you should have any questions regarding
the above, please contact me and I will arrange any necessary meetings with
City staff.
Sincerely,
Joe Frank
Senior Planner
JF/fsr
cc: Ken Waido, Acting Planning Director
Josh Richardson, Development Engineer