HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIDEHILL, FILING ONE - PDP - 32-01B - CORRESPONDENCE - LUC REQUIREMENTSTroy Jones_ RE SideHill
call. The purpose of the meeting was to determine if Staff would find that
we met that criteria; or if we should design a portion of Tract F, Block 9
as a - less desirable, but technically meeting the Code - Small Neighborhood
Park. At that meeting we agreed that the subject criteria was met:
1) Because this park is really an "interim" solution, until the "real' Small
Neighborhood Park in Filing Two is completed; and
2) Because this park is located on the formal walkway - specifically
requested by City Staff - through Block 3 to create a more direct connection
to the proposed future Neighborhood Commercial Center at Rigden Farm.
You specifically told me at that meeting that Planning Staff would support
the park - with minor modifications to reduce the wetland/drainage area
shown at that time - as configured. We proceeded with our site, landscape,
and grading plans based on that commitment.
I would therefore ask that you reconsider comment #155, and stand by your
earlier assurances.
I also understand that City Staff has favorably reviewed our basic design
concept for the Filing Two Small Neighborhood Park and the surrounding
on -way loop in the Collector Street. Would you please provide some written
documentation of that review?
Thank you,
Eldon Ward, President
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
3555 Stanford Road
Suite 105
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)226-4074
(970) 226-4196 - FAX
eldon@cityscapeud.com
Troy Jones_ RE SideHill _ _ _ . _ _ Page 1
From: Troy Jones
To:"eldon@cityscapeud.com".GWIA.FC1
Subject: RE: SideHill
Eldon,
I recall the conversation regarding the small neighborhood park in the first filing, and you can disregard
comment number 155, so long as it still holds true that the grading remains a flat, useable area, and not a
detention area.
The median/park in Sidehill Boulevard was discussed at the staff Transportation Coordination meeting n
November 7, 2002. My notes indicate that generally the concept of the park and community building were
O.K. in the median as proposed, but there are several design details that needed to be resolved in order
to make staff comfortable. The drawing I'm referring to is from Cityscape and labeled "Sidehill Boulevard
Entry/Neighborhood Park Design," and is dated 9/30/02. The concerns are as follows:
1) Do you really need a parking lot within the median park? As proposed there is a concern about
cut -through traffic. From a transportation and planning perspective, we prefer that you rely on on -street
parallel parking rather than having a parking lot, however if you do choose to have a parking lot for the
pool/community building, it would be preferred to have a single entry into it to prevent any cut -through
traffic. It may also solve the cut -through traffic problem if the entries to the parking lot are located away
from street intersections. If you choose to eliminate the parking lot, an alternative compliance request
would be necessary becuase the code would require one off-street parking space for every four persons
maximum rated capacity. Staff would likely support such an alternative compliance request in this case if
the configuration of lots in the vicinity would be designed is such a way that the parallel parking as shown
on the drawing is available without the introduction of many driveways conflicting with such parallel
parking.
2) There's a bit of a concern about possible confusion that the local street traffic may have when coming
to an intersection with the one-way couplets. We may want to talk about a way to prevent illegal left turns
onto these one-way couplets. Perhaps a pork chop, or some sort of channelized lane configurations
would solve this issue.
3) In addition to having pedestrian access into the median/park at the local street intersections as shown,
it would be preferred to also have pedestrian access at the ends of the oblong shaped median/park.
Crosswalks would need to be provided to the wedge shaped medians , then access from there to and
through the hedge at the ends. Another reason these crosswalks in these locations would be preferred in
that it would help to slow traffic through the one-way couplet area.
4) In locations along this collector where the street is not built to street standards because of this
median/park design, such cost to construct such portions of the collector are fully the responsibility of the
developer. In locations east and west of this median/park where the collector is designed to street
standards, the normal ratio of street oversizing contribution will apply.
I hope this answers your questions.
Troy
>>> "Eldon Ward" <eldon@citvscar)eud.com> 01/21/03 02:33PM >>>
Troy,
On August 28, 2002 you and I met to discuss the proposed approach to
meeting the "Small Neighborhood Park" requirement for SideHill Filing One.
Specifically, it was clear that we met the Code Requirements; except that
the "Highly visible... easily observed from streets" criteria was a judgment