HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAMS PARK - PDP - 12-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - (10)The second topic of concern was the issue of access points along West
Elizabeth Street. Based on discussions from our March 27 meeting, I have
revised the site plan and developed one way ingress and egress in order to
reduce the traffic impacts of the site.
Finally, the issue of providing access to Rams Park through KFC was discussed.
I believe that it is in the best interest of the people who will live in Rams Park, the
KFC customers and traffic on West Elizabeth not to provide a vehicular
connection between KFC and Rams Park. The drive -through queue for KFC
would be in direct conflict with any potential connection or parking. Furthermore,
introducing additional two-way traffic via KFC could affect traffic congestion on
West Elizabeth. The proposed one-way ingress/egress to Rams Park will allow
ease of access while removing traffic and reducing turning conflicts from the
intersection of West Elizabeth and KFC/King Sooper's.
Thanks for your time. I look forward to getting your input on the project and hope
to proceed in a time efficient manner. Please feel free to contact me should you
have any further input, suggestions or questions.
Sincerely,
Drew Thomas
Landscape Architect
dthom as(cDvfavfr. com
Cc: Bob Blanchard
Eric Bracke
Matt Baker
Dave Stringer
Clark Mapes
Kathleen Reavis
Mark Jackson
April 19, 2000
Mr. Ronald G. Fuchs
City Planner
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
ort Colliris, CC 80524
Dear Ron:
� T (P� r�' 11 TJ T [
N APR 2 t 2000
VF RIPLEY
ASSOCIATES INC.
Landscape Architecture
Urban Design
Planning
401 West Mountain Avenue
Suite 201
Fort Collins. CO 80521 2604
PHONE t9701 224-5828
FAX 1970 i 224-1662
Thank you for your attention to the Rams Park multi -family development. This
letter is in response to your March 22, 2000 letter addressing potential concerns
regarding our plan. It is my understanding that staff comments on a project are
written after a submittal is made. Again, I appreciate your attention, however, am
a bit curious as to why I received comments the Friday before my originally
scheduled Wednesday submittal. Included in the PDP submittal are a
Transportation Impact Analysis and Engineered Site Plan, both of which provide
the detailed information so important to the issues addressed in your letter.
Additionally, I just wanted to make clear my understanding of the primary issues
discussed at our March 27, 2000 meeting with you, Ward Stafford, Clark Mapes,
Linda Ripley, Gino Campana and myself. It is my understanding that the Land
Use Code sections addressed in your March 22 letter were for the purpose of
preventing any future design issues by making me aware of the following Code
sections relevant to the site design process:
3.5.1(D), 3.5.2(C)(1)9 (C)(2), 4.5(D)(2)(d), (E)(1), (E)(1)(c), 4.19(E)(1) a), (E)(1)
(b), (E)(2)(c)•
All of these Land Use Code sections were understood during the site planning
process. I believe that all modification issues for the project have been resolved.
If you have a different opinion, please let me know as soon as possible.