The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREGENCY LAKEVIEW - PDP & APU - PDP120013 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (3)9. Professional Office to 616 W. Mulberry — this was done in conjunction with a Minor Amendment. Request was denied. 10. Child Care Centerto Washington School — this was done in conjunction with a Site Plan Advisory Review by C.S.U. and approved April 21, 2011. MtG4-D c. Addition of Permitted Use The A.P.U. process was adopted in July of 2008. To date, we have processed the following requests: Wholesale Distribution - 4800 Innovation Drive (existing building, formerly Simpson Sheet Metal) in the H-C, Harmony Corridor zone. Approved. This was in conjunction with an Amendment to a Final Plan. 2. Restaurant, Drive-in and Gas station — proposed shopping center (King Soopers) at the northeast corner of North College and Willox Lane in the C-C-N, Community Commercial - North College zone. Approved with conditions. This was in conjunction with a Preliminary Design Review. 3. Workshop and Custom Small Industry - 525 South Taft Hill Road (existing building, formerly Atlas Roofing) in the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -use Neighborhood zone. Approved with condition. This was in conjunction with an Amendment to a Final Plan (Atlas Roofing P.U.D.). 4. Recreational vehicle, boat and truck storage to a property located one lot east of the southeast corner of South College Avenue and Skyway Drive, located in the C, Commercial zone. Denied. This was in conjunction with a P.D.P. Then after the adoption of the South College Corridor Plan, the request was re -submitted and approved. 5. Warehouse and Public Facility to the Poudre School District property on East Prospect Road in the U-E, Urban Estate zone. Denied. This was in conjunction with an Overall Development Plan. 6. Unlimited Indoor Recreation — Rocky Mountain Archery in the H-C, Harmony Corridor zone. The building exceeded 5,000 square feet so the use moved from "limited indoor recreation," which is permitted in the I zone, to "unlimited" which is not so permitted. Approved. 7. Professional Office and Bed and Breakfast with Six or Fewer Beds — 1124 West Mulberry at the northeast corner of Mulberry and Shields, existing building currently occupied by State Farm Insurance in the N-C-L. Approved with condition that there be no exterior changes. 8. Light Industrial to the former Toys R Us building at 120 Bockman Drive to allow Ice Energy to occupy the building specifically for research, design, development, prototype fabrication and testing in association with an office component in conjunction with a referral of Minor Amendment to the P.U.D. Request was approved but later withdrawn by the applicant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COvar 4) What has occurred with the project over the last 5 months? � 8ALL, =tJ grppL tC-AM7'S A Has a traffic analysis been performed during the last 5 months? Q e-Z A 7 3 TV.0 `1 ---------------------------------------------------- 5) I didn't see the proposal listed in the current proposals spreadsheet (http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/pdf/2011_current_ planning_applications_ 21.27.11.pdf), is this expected? NOT Su3M •T7•rA ye Y ---------------------------------------------------- 6) If the development proposal has been submitted, where can I find the public records and details about it? L 4 T h*S NOT, ---------------------------------------------------- 7) Based on the flowchart (http://www.fcgov.com/drg/pdf/flowchart.pdf), is the project still in step 2? yE-J N • T StJ g M • TTrb yt S ) I would like to see a specific detailed map of the access points and proposals. Specifically: IV 0 N c A e fiE'J J. * Is the proposal for Lemay to have a right turn -only entrance only (when traveling north)) or: J' h•va.o R•.s0A4 -9 yq.h_aAvr * Lemay, entrance only, right turn when traveling north, left turn when traveling south * Lemay, entrance and exit, both directions, or one direction only ? * Drake: similar questions on the configuration ? T = . f• Where can I see this map or the specific proposal for traffic? _9:�_ T.T. S. W*oLn ST&N f:oAn ------------------------- --- ?--------------- ao2 /- i°o8o10 9) Drake going East is a Lind corne> with the Brookwood jog, before the crosswalk on Brookwood. I use the crosswalk there a number of times per week and am aware that no one stops for pedestrians, and the jog makes things more complex than normal. Are there plans to improve this crossing to have a pedestrian light as part of this project? of 000 QvC4rr•O4 FOR TXsrPl'r L 4)Pd &r•aAu. ---------------------------------------------------- 10) What are the plans for pedestrian access changes on Lemay? This question came up a number of times in both previous meetings, have the last 5 months been used to address this kind of concern? W,4p_Q - ------------------------------------------------ 11) Thanks you,( - Carlos Bonilla 3013 Eindborough, Fort Collins 0 1-1-" - 2 VW Ted Shepard From: Bonilla, Carlos (HP10) [carlos.bonilla@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:02 AM To: Ted Shepard; Bonilla, Carlos (HPIO) Hello, I have a number of questions in preparation for the "Regency Lakeview - Multi -Family" proposal and upcoming meeting next week, on Thursday, February 9th. I've taken your email/name from the project letters, in the hope that you're the right contact for the questions below. ---------------------------------------------------- 1) I understand that this project is being proposed under section 1.3.4 "Addition of Permitted Uses" of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, and not the PDOD (Planned Development Overlay District) . Is this correct? YES i9A/0r f -R /- 3. y x,v CajV SU vc,n e N w/ A PA4nC7' R-A& , ---------------------------------------------------- 2) As I read the current meeting announcement letter, the proposal is to have 175 / 9 = 19-20 units per building; 175 / 11 acres = 15 dwelling units per acre. I know this isn't a rezoning request, but I'm trying to understand what information in Section 4 of the would be applicable for this density and size of request. As I read things, this proposal is basically trying to change the zone to allow something like Division 4.6 Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District. 6,0AO,C-4r HMN-'-dK.F (http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/article4.htm#div4d6) P'1 M 0-J STb S W01It,0 AD P Z. hhrS Trw /}9roirY TV APPGN fl ^ AJ 3r4j fr,r A GONOi 7'i 0,11 V19 rAAA"r.#v(& AAA R'r'1,1&'V , LWhen "Addition of Permitted Uses" is being used to change what types of projects are Eallowed in an existing zone, which rules about existing zone definitions apply? I'm asking this because the Division 4.* wording is usually very specific. On the other hand, 1.3.4 reads so vaguely to me that it sounds like almost anything can be added into a zone. Do,; fi"LGdT ART. 3 (3.S . ) ) Ap/4EJ &,r s,JEaG. For example, for the large, high density, multi -family developments described in 4.6, a park must be available within 1/4 mile. L ��,� /�p�y.OP �s �N ►: A PAsvw, 10A1 YES .01 Rc ApitK Rr rv�c rd uTN S-iVe Are FAQs or explanations of what 1.3.4 permits available somewhere? _T A bN*,vo-owr What other similar projects in town has been developed in a Low Density Revidential zone under the provisions of 1.3.4? /NOA/6' (/N4e-* I, 3 ,y Bu; /h-A-"7 uNor* x",4AC A I" THrt I- .AG.r to pi a sr tit ph N6-d-e ------------------------------- PenA�r�'�'n —' 3) Where can I find the list of changes that have been made to the proposal since the August 31st meeting? Pieavf 06,0 Reading the minutes from the previous meeting, and comparing these against the letter from the city for this meeting, I see: * Number of dwelling units: was 238, now 175 * Number of parking spaces: was 381, now 312 * Cosmetic name change: was "Regency at Parkwood Lake - Multi -Family", now "Regency Lakeview - Multi -Family" I can't find any other description of changes or differences. %'M�R ti4 Now S fiDLi ENr1d O F' t' - - MA'rGJ FXO^ Z. �'1'AN,j rlr� SOMG 3L0 is , M-F poi- P_-L 1 ►i •- L, A,N - a-t w xf '' PAD