HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAMS PARK - PDP/FDP - 12-00 - CORRESPONDENCE -The narrative should not focus on the proposed multi -family dwelling lay -out as
preliminarily designed for this site, but should rather address the criteria by which the
Planning and Zoning Board must review a modification request. As specified in the
.LUC Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, the Planning and Zoning Board
shall review, consider, and approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for
a modification of standards based on compliance with LUC 2.8.2(H). Section 2.8.2(H)
of the Land Use Code states that in order for the Board to grant a modification, they
must find that the proposed plan:
a) is not detrimental to the public good;
a) does not impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code;
b) satisfies the criteria of either (1) (2) or (3) of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code.
The standard drainage and erosion control reports and plans and a Transportation
Impact Study (TIS) will be required with your development plan submittal (see
November 15, 1999, Conceptual Review Comments). Please.contact me at
970.221.6750 and/or e-mail: rfuchsljd�ci.fort-collins.co.us if you should have any
questions or concerns related to these comments.
Sincerely,
Ronald G. Fuchs
City Planner
cc: Bob Blanchard
Eric. Bracke
Matt Baker
Dave Stringer
Clark.Mapes
Kathleen Reavis
Mark Jackson
DAMy Documents\Concept Review\Capana Ripley Site Mod Itr 1.doc
Page 3 of 3
Standards (2)Mix of Housing Types (d) Lot pattern; 4.5 MMN District (E)
Development Standards (1) Block Requirements; 4.5 MMN District (E) Development
Standards (1) Block Requirements (c) Minimum Building Frontage; 4.19 NC District
(E) Development Standards (1) Site Planning (a) Overall Plan; 4.19 NC District (E)
Development Standards (1) Site Planning (b) Central -Feature or Gathering Place; and,
4.19 NC District (E) Development Standards (c) Minimum Building Frontage, needs
to be addressed in a burden of proof statement. In order for staff to complete an
adequate review of a modification request and forward a recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Board, we need a narrative and plans submitted for review.
The preliminary site plan, as submitted, has not demonstrated that a development plan
layout meeting all code standards is infeasible. Based on a preliminary review of the
plan and the Land Use Code standards, staff does not agree that the site constricted by
barriers which will restrict adherence to Land Use Code standards. Specifically, due to
the size of the parcel, staff feels that incorporating the KFC site, provides the needed .
access to provide the continuity of development. To assist City staff and the Planning
and Zoning Board in evaluating the modification of code standards, a legitimate plan
meeting all code standards shall be submitted.
Prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board, the plan and
narrative needs to prove the unfeasibility of all applicable standards. Land Use Code
Sections 3.5.1(D); 3.5.2 (C)(1); 3.5.2(C)(2); 4.5(D)(2)(d);.4.5(E)(1); 4.5(E)(1)(c);
4.19(E)(1)(a); 4.19(E)(1)(b); and, 4.19(E)(c) requires to the maximum extent feasible,
primary facades and entries face the*- adjacent street and have a direct pedestrian
connection to the street without requiring all pedestrians to walk through parking lots or
cross driveways with no primary entrance more than 200 feet from a street sidewalk and
that minimum building frontage be attained from the street. If facing a street is not
feasible, at a minimum, a main entrance shall face a connecting walkway'with a direct .
pedestrian connection to the street. "Maximum extent feasible" is defined in Article 5 of
the LUC as "no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply
with the regulation or minimize harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken."
"Connecting walkway" is defined in Article 5 of the LUC as "any street sidewalk, or any
walkway that directly connects a building entrance(s) to the street sidewalk... without
requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings, or
follow parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route." The building
orientation shall face the adjacent streets with a direct pedestrian walkway as required
in LUC Sections 3.5.1(D) and 3.5.2(C).
Further, Land Use Code Section 4.19 (E)(1)(a) requires that the applicant demonstrate
that the development plan contributes to a cohesive, continuous, visually related and
functionally linked pattern within existing or approved development plans in terms of
street and sidewalk layout, building siting and character and site design. The site is part
of an existing development plan, the KFC at West Elizabeth Plaza - Planned Unit
Development and the preliminary plan shows an insufficient correlation with the
approved plan.
Page 2 of 3
CommL y Planning and Environmental'
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
March 22, 2000
Mr. Drew Thomas
VF Ripley and Associate
401 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2604
Dear Mr. Thomas:
-vices
In response to your preliminary inquiry and to follow-up on the February 10, 2000 and
March 8, 2000 meetings, Engineering, Traffic Operations and Current Planning
discussed the preliminary site plan. This letter is to offer some insight as to what
additional information or clarification is needed to review your request.
-Based upon the preliminary plan, staff will not support a project providing two (2) private
drive access points onto West Elizabeth, in addition to the existing KFC access point.
The City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer have reviewed curb cuts and In order to
facilitate-tTie street system (Design and Construction Criteria, Standards and
Specifications for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys and Other Public Ways — Diagrams D-9
and D-10) and comply with the recorded KFC at West Elizabeth Plaza - Planned Unit
Development only one additional cut will be permitted for this section of West Elizabeth
Street. Further, review of the KFC at West Elizabeth Plaza -Planned Unit Development
indicates that properties be connected with a future internal connection to allow the KFC
site to functioncollectively with joint parking and pedestrian links with property to the
west. The development plan with the restricted internal private drive and three curb
cuts provides a less organized arrangement of buildings and parking than would a
development plan with the connecting joint access through the KFC development. The
plan shall provide an orderly development of the site in conjunction with the surrounding
properties and the availability of public service facilities. Hence, Staff will not support a
development plan eliminating the joint parking and circulation arrangement as was
approved and recorded with the West Elizabeth Plaza - Planned Unit Development and
will not support a plan providing three (3) or more private drive curb cuts for this section
of West Elizabeth Street.
Based upon the conceptual layout, modification of Land Use Code Sections 3.5.1
Building and Project Compatibility (D) Building Orientation; 3.5.2 Residential
Building Standards (C) Relationship of Attached and Multi -Family Buildings to
Streets and Parking (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway; 3.5.2 Residential
Building Standards (C) Relationship of Attached and Multi -Family Buildings to
Streets and Parking (2) Street -Facing Facades; 4.5 MMN District (D) Land Use
pa8a 1 of .1
281 North College Avenue - PO. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750 - FAX (970) 416-2020