HomeMy WebLinkAboutGARTH COMMERCIAL PLAZA - PDP - 20-02B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - REVISIONSCMM@@P(A�
urban design, inc.
Number: 4 Created: 2/19/2003
Remove topo lines from final site and landscape plans
Response: Done.
Number: 5 Created: 2/19/2003
Show and label building envelope
Response: / apologize for overlooking this comment during my site plan revisions. / will
provide an updated site plan to you with this information by the end of this week. Thanks
for your patience.
Number: 6 Created: 2/19/2003
Note typical parking stall width on site plan
Response: Done.
Number: 7 Created: 2/19/2003
Show and label HC access ramps
Response. Done.
Number: 8 Created: 2/19/2003
This is not in the neighborhood sign district - please do not show signage locations on
elevations - signage will be reviewed and permitted separately.
Response: Lockwood Architects has removed sigh locations from the building elevations.
We believe that we have accommodated all of these comments in our revised plans. Please
feel free to contact me if concerns remain or new ones arise. We will work diligently to
address any comments, and hope to ensure that this PDP continues to moveforward
towards a timely hearing date.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Straw, AICP
Project Manager
Copy to: George Holter, Garth Development
Jack Blake, Stewart & Associates
Brian Ho, Lockwood Architects
Kate Hodgins, ESC
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page
13
cd�n@@p�
urban design, inc.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: General
Number: 9 Created: 3/3/2003
Provide site and landscape plans for lots 1 & 2 with the next submittal.
Response. Lots 1 and 2 have been constructed. As discussed, these plans are not
necessary for review of this project.
Number: 10 Created: 3/3/2003
Correct all sheets of the utility plans to reflect the same information.
Response: All sheets now reflect the same information.
Number: 12 Created: 3/3/2003
Coordinate the location of the fire line with the mechanical engineer to extend fire line into
mechanical room. Include the standard general note to extend the fire line and domestic
water line into the a mechanical room where a backflow device shall be installed.
Response: Water line notes added to Sheet No. 3.
Number: 16 Created: 3/3/2003
Provide a profile of all proposed storm sewers. Show all water and sewer lines in profile
view and maintain the require separation distances.
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments.
Response. See Sheet 4 for Storm Sewer Profile.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 29 Created: 3/13/2003
Clarify on the utility plans what is existing and proposed.
Response: Existing and proposed utilities are labeled.
Number: 30 Created: 3/13/2003
Will 3/4" water service be adequate for this many building tenants?
Response: Per owner the 3/4"service is adequate.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: ZONING
Number: 3 Created: 2/19/2003
Would like to see the two connecting walkways be of an enhanced concrete or brick
something more permanent than striping.
Response: The walkway to the north will remain a striped walk, however the southern
walkway is considered our primary connecting walkway and will be enhanced by use of
colored, stamped surfacing and/or other similar treatments to be further determined with
Final Plans.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page
12
co72@@o
urban design, inc.
Topic: SedimentfErosion Control
Number: 34 Created: 3/14/2003
It would appear from some of the notes and comments on the plan that this construction is
to be done in phases. Please submit a sedimentlerosion control plan where each phase is
independent of the other (stand alone).
Response: 'Phase /" was the hotel site north of this site, which has already been
developed. Therefore, this 'Phase Y plan stands alone.
This comment was made due to the confusion of the plan set. A new utility plan set for the
PDP should clarify this.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Transportation
Number: 20 Created: 3/12/2003
Please correct all plan sets to show directional access ramps at the driveway / Mason Street
intersections as per the LCUASS.
Response: Directional ramps are now shown on the plans.
Number: 21 Created: 3/12/2003
Correct the discrepancies between plan sets. For example, the walkway connecting to the
south of the building from Mason St. should be identified on the landscape and site plan as
a raised crosswalk. This would be consistent with the utility plans and the modification
approval. Will ramps across the drive aisles be required with the raised walks or will they be
flush with the walkway? Other discrepancies include the location of the parking lot median,
access ramps, and building envelope / plaza area.
Response: Plan discrepancies have been corrected, including the location of accessible
ramps, etc.
Number: 22 Created: 3/12/2003
The proposed walkway connecting to the Mason Corridor showed 0.00 on the photometric
plan. This will need to be increased for pedestrian visibility and safety, and can be
accomplished using wall mounted lighting fixtures on the side of the north elevation.
Response: Wall mounted fixtures have been added to all sides of the building.
Number: 23 Created: 3/12/2003
Please label all necessary access ramps on all plan sets, including the site and landscaping
plans.
Response: All ramps have been labeled on the site, landscaping, and utilityplans.
Number: 24 Created: 3/12/2003
Mason Street is classified as a 2-Lane Arterial on the Master Street Plan and requires a total
right of way (ROW) of 84 feet. Additional research is necessary to determine if the
appropriate amount of ROW has already been dedicated.
Response: Revised as discussed. See cross-section on Sheet I of the Utility Plans. R-O-
W left as it now exists. The public sidewalk has been added to the west of R-O-Wand wiZ(
be in a dedicated pub/ic acces-sy/pedestrian easement.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page
11
covp@p�
urban design, inc.
Number: 15 Created: 3/3/2003
Landscape plan: reduce height of materials used at northwest and southwest corners of
building. Proposed materials present potential for both pedestrian and vehicular sight
limitation problems.
Response. Planting materials at the corners of the building have been revised to
accommodate this concern.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
Number: 28 Created: 3/13/2003
The variance request to exclude water quality was denied by the Utilities departmment. Due
to this project being a new PDP submittal, the project should comply with current standards.
Response: Water quality will be provided as agreed upon per discussions with you and
your department.
Number: 31 Created: 3/14/2003
Drainage easements are required for both detention ponds and both storm sewers. An off -
site drainage easement is required for the storm sewer that is on the property to the south,
as well as a temporary construction easement.
Response: Easements now exist on these lots as shown on the subdivision plat. However,
because the building moved west to accommodate planning requirements, the western
easement wi// need to be vacated and a new easement dedicated. Both new easements
and offske easements all/ be dedicated to the City with Final Plans, by separate
documents.
Number: 32 Created: 3/14/2003
The sidewalk chase that is taking flows off of Mason Street onto the site needs to be a
concrete culvert, Detail D-12.
Response: The sidewalk chase has been eliminated.
Number: 33 Created: 3/14/2003
Please provide all contours on the grading plan. Contour 37 and 38 are missing. Also,
please clarify proposed and existing grades. Plan has conflicts with proposed contours and
spot elevations.
Response: Contours have been shown both existing and proposed. The proposed spot
elevations should match proposed finished contours
Number: 35 Created: 3/14/2003
At next submittal, the new PDP plan set needs to include storm sewer plan and profiles, and
all details pertinent to this site.
Response: Storm Sewer prohles added to plans on Sheet No. 4.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page
10
CO72@@o
urban design, inc.
Number: 51 Created: 3/14/2003
Update all the old details to the new details. Provide details 701, 707, 708, 710, 1601, 1602,
1606, and the Greeley detail for the truncated domes now required for all access ramps.
See attached.
Response: We have updated to current details with this submittal. We used the state's
access ramp details in place of Greeley's. These have previously been okayed. When
might a City of Ft. Collins detail become available?
Number: 52 Created: 3/14/2003
See redlines.
Response: Redline comments have been addressed.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 1 Created: 2/18/2003
The utility plan doesn't match the site plan. The site plan shows (for example) islands in the
parking area west of the building. The utility plan doesn't show these islands.
Response: We have tried to match all lines for the resubmittal. If we have missed anything
this time, it is helpful ifyou continue to be specific in your comments (such as the islands).
Number: 2 Created: 2/18/2003
Developer will need to coordinate a location for a pad type electric transformer with Light &
Power Engineering.
Response: Acknowledged that developedGty coordination is required for pad. In trading
voicemails this week, it appears the most important issue is ensuring coordination prior to
submittal of Final Plans to provide a suitable location and clearance for the transformer
Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Topic: General
Number: 13 Created: 3/3/2003
Lighting: additional lighting needed at north and south end of building - need minimum of
0.5fc.
Response: ESC has revised the photometric plan and attempted to reconcile conflicts
between these Police comments, and the requirements of the electric code. ff further
concerns exist, please contact me directly and we can attempt to work through those.
Number: 14 Created: 3/3/2003
Lighting: need additional lighting along west face of building - need at least 0.7 fc out 25 feet
from building.
Response: ESC has revised the photometric plan and attempted to reconcile conflicts
between these Police comments, and the requirements of the electric code. if further
concerns exist, please contact me directly and we can attempt to work through those.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page 9
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 48
Remove the contours.
Response: Done.
coo�n@@P(A�
urban design, inc.
Created: 3/14/2003
Number: 49 Created: 3/14/2003
Show all existing and proposed utility and drainage easements.
Response: Done.
Number: 50 Created: 3/14/2003
Correct all overlapping labeling. This sheet is very hard to read.
Response: Done.
Topic: Site
Number: 43 Created: 3/14/2003
See redlines regarding notes 1 and 3.
Response: HC ramps have been shown on the site & landscape plans. All known
easements and lot areas are included on these plans as well. (Note #1 merely indicates
that these site and landscape plans, as planning documents, are illustrative for these items
only, and are not to replace the information found on a final plat or other document in
regard to these items.)
Number: 44
Ghost existing features.
Response: Done.
Number: 45
Remove contours.
Response: Done.
Created: 3/14/2003
Created: 3/14/2003
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 36 Created: 3/14/2003
The utility plans that were submitted are expired and must be resubmitted to current
standards (October 1, 2002 LCUASS). You may revise the older set and bubble out
everything that's changed but it would much easier, faster, and cleaner to resubmit a new
plan set under another name that's different than the expired set. Please see chapter 3 and
appendix E for submittal and design requirements. Please complete and submit Appendix
E4 with the next submittal. Quite a lot of information was left off this submittal. Expect more
comments in the next round if not designed in accordance with the current street standards.
Response: Original set was included for reference only, and has been removed from this
submittal. Appendix E4 is now being submitted. We are not doing any development to
the street (South Mason), and are therefore unsure how to respond to the last sentence
regarding street standards.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 page 8
cb�n@@P(A�
urban design, inc.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy
Topic: General
Number:37 Created: 3/14/2003
Please see chapter 19, details 19-7 and 19-6 for parking stall and parking setback
requirements.
Response: These details are reflected on the revised site plan.
Number: 38 Created: 3/14/2003
Please provide directional ramps at all intersections.
Response: Directional ramps are now submitted at all intersections (driveways).
Number: 39 Created: 3/14/2003
Mason Street is designated as a 2-lane arterial. Please design your frontage in accordance
with detail 7-3F. Further research is needed to determine whether or not additional ROW is
required.
Response: '7--3F' is used as our base street section, however there are differences from
the existing section to that shown in '7-3F. ' Per discussions the proposed and mostly -
existing section is shown on the cover sheet of the utility drawings.
Number: 40 Created: 3/14/2003
Coordinate the various plan sets so that they present the same information.
Response: The design team has coordinated this submittal and believe this situation has
been rectified with this submittal.
Number: 41 Created: 3/14/2003
Please contact Eric Bracke to determine whether or not a Traffic Study is required.
Response: Mr: Bracke's response indicates that the current submittal is satisfactory.
Number: 42 Created: 3/14/2003
Provide a drainage and soils report.
Response: Drainage and soils reports were submitted and will again be submitted (2 each)
with this resubmittal.
Number: 46 Created: 3/14/2003
Provide off -site drainage and temporary construction easements for all work occurring
outside the project boundary.
Response: Needed offsite easements, along with onsite easements, will be submitted for
dedication to the City with Final Plans for this project. Also, the existing drainage
easement on the west side of the property will need to be vacated as the building has been.
moved from the first submittal. This will also be done in correlation with Final Plans for
this project to ensure the proper easements are vacated/created based on the approved
site plan.
Number: 47 Created: 3/14/2003
Provide all necessary drainage and utility easements by plat or separate document.
Response: See response for #46.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page 7
U M@@P@
urban design, inc.
Response: We have reprogrammed the site and have been able to Bt the majority of the
previous uses within the width of the site, with the appropriate sidewalks, landscape
setbacks, and planting areas.
Number: 63 Created: 3/17/2003
The walkways through the parking lot must be grade separated from the parking lot with a
paved surface not less than 6 feet in width [3.2.2(C)(5)(a)]. The material and layout of the
walkways through the parking lot must be continuous as they cross the driveway, with a
break in continuity of the driveway paving and not in the pedestrian access way
[3.2.2(C)(5)(b)]. Revise the drawings to reflect these requirements.
Response: Per discussions with Troy Jones and Cameron Gloss the southern walkway is
considered an `enhanced" walkway and w/// be demarcated as an obvious pedestrian
crossing through the use of colored, stamped surfacing or similar treatments The walk is
not proposed as raised due to potential storm water management diffl"cu/des arising from
the infill situation of this site and updated stormwater requirements of the city.
Number: 64 Created: 3/17/2003
The vehicular use area of the parking lot must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the
Mason Street right-of-way [3.2.2(J)]. Revise the drawings to reflect this requirement.
Response: This has been modified.
Number: 65 Created: 3/17/2003
Clearly label and dimension the width of the parking stalls. They are required to be 9 feet
wide [3.2.2(L)(1)].
Response: Additional dimensions have been added for clarity.
Topic: Transportation
Number: 55 Created: 3/14/2003
Provide a 10 foot wide parkway and a 6 foot wide sidewalk along Mason Street [LUC
3.6.1(B)]. Either dedicate enough additional right of way in order for this to occur within the
right-of-way, or dedicate a pedestrian access easement in the sidewalk location.
Response: The sidewalk has now been moved west of the R-O-W line which makes the
parkway 9 feet back of walk to curb flow line. A pedestrian walkway easement will be
dedicated to the City in correlation with this project. This location is as discussed in
meetings with planning staff, and as presented to the Transportation Coordination Meeting
staff following these comments.
Topic: Utility Plan
Number: 58 Created: 3/14/2003
After further review, it has been discovered that the original utility plan approved for lots 3
and 4 at the time that the hotel was developed have expired [LUC 2.2.11(D)(3)]. New utility
plans must be submitted that satisfy the applicable standards currently in place.
Response: New utility plans were submitted along with the original to be used for
reference. The original utilityplans have now been removed from this resubmittal.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page 6
urban design, inc.
trail will be on the west side of the tracks, and there will be crossings of the tracks only at the
Stations at Troutman and Horsetooth.
Response. Received.
Number: 27 Created: 3/12/2003
As we have been conducting public outreach for the Mason Transportation Corridor project,
one bit of feedback we have heard from business owners along this stretch of the corridor is
that they would like a way to get pedestrians (customers and employees) quickly and
conveniently to the transit stations. The future planned transit stations at Troutman and
Horsetooth are both considered major off -site pedestrian facilities, and the
bicycle/pedestrian underpass planned at Troutman is considered a major off -site bicycle
facility. To that end, the application of Section 3.2.2(C)(6) of the LUC requires that the on -
site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system must be designed to provide, or allow for,
direct connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations and to existing or planned
off -site pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This can be accomplished by designing the service
drive on the west of the site in a way that shares the space with pedestrians. The design of
this shared area needs to use materials that are different and enhanced from other vehicular
areas on the site. The design of this shared area must comply with standards for pedestrian
crossings of vehicular areas found in Section 3.2.2(C) of the LUC where it states the
following: "Where it is necessary for the primary pedestrian access to cross drive aisles or
internal roadways, the pedestrian crossing shall emphasize and place priority on pedestrian
access and safety. The material and layout of the pedestrian access shall be continuous as
it crosses the driveway, with a break in continuity of the driveway paving and not in the
pedestrian access way. The pedestrian crossings must be well -marked using pavement
treatments, signs, striping, signals, lighting, traffic calming techniques, median refuge areas
and landscaping." As an alternative to this, an exclusive 6 foot wide sidewalk could be
located outside of, but next to on the west of the service drive. In this option, the walkway
must be separated from the property line by a 5 foot wide landscape area, and shall be
grade separated from the service drive by a curb.
Response: This issue was resolved in March in a meeting with Troy Jones and Cameron
Gloss. This requirement will not be imposed by staff' due to the lack of rational nexus for
this site and that improvements.
Topic: Site
Number: 56 Created: 3/14/2003
The parking spaces shown on the west side of the building do not have an overhang area
shown, so they need to be at least 19 feet deep [LUC 3.2.2(L)].
Response: They were shown at 19; but were mislabeled at 17' This has been corrected.
Number: 57 Created: 3/14/2003
From east to west on the site, something's got to give. Every foot of this dimension is
programmed with active space, yet minimum widths of sidewalks, parkways, vehicular area
setback, foundation planting beds, etc. are not adequately provided. The building could be
designed more shallow (from front to back), or you could eliminate one of the rows of
parking, or reconfigure the parking lot to eliminate one of the drives. As drawn, there's not
enough space to fit in all of the programmed elements. See attached redline trace paper
taped to the redlined site plan.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page 5
ccY2@@o
urban design, inc.
Number: 54 Created: 3/14/2003
The north, west, and south building walls are required to have planting beds at least 5 feet
wide along at least 50 percent of these walls [LUC 3.2.1(E)(2)(d)].
Response: The building footprint and site plan has been modified to accommodate these
planting areas As discussed with Troy Jones, the walk on the north has been eliminated
to allow for additional landscaping along that fagade.
Number: 60 Created: 3/17/2003
It appears that less than the required amount of parking lot interior landscaping is being
proposed. Refer to the purple line sketched onto the redlined landscape plan from Current
Planning. This line, represents the vehicular area of which 6 percent must be landscaped
area. Include a chart on the landscape plan that clarifies the square footage of this
vehicular area, and also clarifies how much of that area, in square footage, is devoted to
landscaped areas. It is required to be at least 6 percent, and must be communicated on the
landscape plan as such [3.2.1(E)(5)].
Response: The landscaping has been modified to provide the required interior
landscaping. Calculations of this appear on Sheet S1.
Number: 61 Created: 3/17/2003
Street trees in the parkway strip along Mason Street are required to be provided at a ratio of
one tree per 25 lineal feet where the street abuts the parking lot (the whole lot's frontage).
Provide more trees in order to satisfy this standard [3.2.1(E)(4)].
Response: The existing locations of water and sewer service reduce the potential for
successfullyplanting the full number of street trees along this frontage. We have added an.
additional tree, and placed them all in the right-of-way, but the 6^ tree is not possible due
to existing utility stubs.
Number: 62 Created: 3/17/2003
Although the Mason Transportation Corridor is adjacent to the site, the nearest station
location is at Troutman. Directly to the west of the site will be the designated Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) lane, which will be contained entirely within the railroad right-of-way, but will
look and act much like a small street exclusively for busses. The required 5 foot wide
landscape strip along the west side of the vehicular area shall have canopy shade trees
placed within that landscaped area spaced at intervals of one tree per 40 lineal feet along
the west property line [3.2.1(4)(a) & 3.2.1(H)].
Response: The required trees will be installed adjacent to the parking area in the rear, as
required by LUC. Additional landscaping has been added to this area for enhanced
aesthetics.
Topic: Mason Transportation Corridor
Number: 26 Created: 3/12/2003
Please see the attached plan detail and cross section of our latest progress on the design of
the Mason Transportation Corridor. Please note that the portion of the corridor adjacent to
this site is the Bus Rapit Transit (BRT) lanes. These BRT lanes will be located within the
railroad right-of-way, within 50 feet of the centerline of the tracks. The two closest transit
stations for the BRT will be at Troutman and Horsetooth. The regional bicycle/pedestrain
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page 4
UM@@P(A�
urban design, inc.
Dennis Greenwalt - AT&T Broadband
If not replatting, submit a copy of the existing approved plat for review. AT&T Broadband
would like to see a plat map on this site before making any comments on easements and
accesses.
Response: Twelve copies of the plat are being resubmitted as per the planning
department requested. An additional copy labeled for you is also being submitted. There
is and were copies of the plat in the utility drawing also.
Rick Lee - Fort Collins Building Department
Please find attached the various codes that the Fort Collins Building Department will
enforce. From the brief information provided the overhead doors might cause some
occupancy separation problems as the tenant spaces become filled. The introduction of a
vehicle into the building will require at least an S-3 occupancy. The noted future man -doors
are accurate since an overhead door is not an approved means of egress.
Response: Lockwood Architects received this information, these issues will be addressed
with future building plans.
Mike Spuagin - Post Office
If not replatting, submit a copy of the existing approved plat for review.
Response: Twelve copies of the plat are being resubmitted as per the planning
department requested. An additional copy labeled for you is also being submitted. There
is and were copies of the plat in the utility drawing also.
Laurie D'Audney - Water Conservation
Ok.
Len Hilderbrand - Public Service (XCEL Energy)
(a) PSCO HAS AN EXISTING 2" GAS MAIN LOCATED IN THE EXISTING 13' UTILITY
EASEMENT.
(b) CONTACT FOR NEW SERVICE IS JIM DEWILDE 970 225-7844.
Response: Acknowledged
Eric Bracke - City Traffic Operations
No Traffic Issues.
Beth Sowder - Streets
Ok.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 53 Created: 3/14/2003
The vehicular area on the west side of the building must be setback from the west property
line by at least 5 feet [LUC 3.2.2(J)].
Response: This has been modified on the site plan.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page 3
CO M@@
urban design, inc.
right-of-way, allowing for a 9-10' tree lawn along Mason Street. The walk will be
constructed in a public access easement.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Troy Jones
Topic: Elevations
Number: 59 Created: 3/14/2003
There is not adequate variation in massing or wall articulation on the west facade [LUC
3.5.3(C), 3.5.3(D)(2)(a), 3.5.3(D)(3), and 3.5.3(D)(6)]. See redlined building elevations from
Current Planning.
Response: Lockwood Architects has addressed these issues with a revised building
elevation, after meeting with Troy Jones.
Number: 66 Created: 3/17/2003
None of the facades satisfy top treatment requirements [3.5.3(D)(6)(b)]. The north, west,
and south facades don't satisfy the base treatment requirements [3.5.2(D)(6)(a)]. The north
and south facades don't satisfy fagade articulation requirements [3.5.3(D)(2)]. See redlined
building eleveations from Current Planning.
Response: Lockwood Architects has addressed these issues with a revised building
elevation, after a meeting with Troy Jones.
Topic: General
Number: 25 Created: 3/12/2003
The following departments and agencies forwarded hand written comments directly to me as
follows:
Tim Buchanan - City Forester
(a) Four trees should be planted between the sidewalk and the curb. See attached plan.
Response: The locations proposed on the redlined plan illustrates placing two trees
directly over the existing water and sewer service lines that are stubbed into the site. The
placement illustrated was an attempt to provide the necessary trees along the street as
close to the right-of-way as possible. We have added an additional tree along this
frontage, and moved them all into the right-of-way, avoiding all udlitylines as required.
(b) Change landscape note #20 to this statement: A free permit must be obtained from the
City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or
removed in the public right-of-way. This includes all areas between the sidewalk and curb
and street medians. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted.
Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on
certificate of occupancy.
Response. Done.
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 613103 Page 2
June 3, 2003
Project Review Team
c/o Troy Jones
Current Planning Division
City of Fort Collins
281 N. Main Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: GART-i COMMERCIAL PLAZA — CITY COMMENTS # 1
Project Review Team,
COXM@@P(A�
urban design, inc.
3555 stanford road, suite 105
fort collins, Colorado 80525
(970) 226-4074
fax (970) 226-4196
e@cityscapeud.com
Upon review of the city comments received on March 17', we have made appropriate
modifications and revisions to the PDP plans and listed written responses to each of the issues
raised below. The accompanying plans reflect these changes.
Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
Topic: General
Number: 17 Created: 3/9/2003
Ramp Question: Can/should the ramps at the Mason street driveways be directional (north -
south)? Why divert out at the 45 degree angle?
Response: Ramps now comply with the Laniner Co. Urban Street Standards.
Number: 18 Created: 3/9/2003
The written statement mentions the Mason Street Corridor as a reason for this layout. How
does this orient to the Corridor? Should the E/W walks which skirt the building be wider?
For those familiar with the 281 North College Building, note the walk skirting the north side
of the building is 8 feet wide and in general I believe this is a minimal width for anything
other than a secondary utilitarian sidewalk along a building face.
Response: As a note the above -referenced walk at 281 N. College also accommodates at
least a 2-foot overhang of the vehicles parked there, resulting, effectively, in about a 6-foot
walk. The walk on the south of the proposed building are 6' wide, without adjacent
overhanging parking. The northern walk has been eliminated to allow for additional
landscaping opportunity, as coordinated with city planning staff`.'
Number: 19 Created: 3/9/2003
Why is the street tree planting area between the street and sidewalk so narrow? Besides
simply appearing skimpy, it creates turf maintenance and irrigation problems and more
potential sidewalk/curb problems in the long run. IF it can't meet standards, I would
recommend 6 feet minimum.
Response: This was proposed using the existing right-of-way, and incorporating a
detached walk with a tree lawn. The walk has now been placed on the other side of the
Garth Commercial Plaza, Response to Comments, 4118103 Page I