Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARBOR PLAZA SOUNDTRACK CAR AUDIO INSTALL - PDP/FDP - 13-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Date: Planner: ;zd L/ i Traffic Operations: Engineer: k Engineering itormwater Site x land x Plat Items Requested Utili r Drainage Opt Other Items Required Lis bite Redlined Items land Plat Being Returned Urili Drainage R t Other Items Being Returned Water/Wastewate — — Tralic Operations Trans. Planning Tran*rt Natural Resources ✓ — — -- _ — — — Park Planning — Totals Other: Hole: All redlined items should be returned with the rembmittal/ rtOilom, anything more than landscaping that is required anyway. To truly mitigate for the loss of the tree, you need to show that you are providing a tree somewhere else that isn't otherwise required, and that the loss of the tree won't escalate the glare and heat build-up of the site. Contact me if you have any further questions on how to rephrase this request. Be sure and return all the redlined items when you resubmit. If you have any questions about these or any other issues related to this project please feel free to call be at 221-6206. YouI truly, Troy Jo es City Planner 3 accommodate pedestrians as the first priority." Additionally, Section 3.5.3(D)(2)(a)(1)&(2 j require specific articulation that subdivides the wall •into human scale proportions including false windows with sills and lintels. Please add false windows in each of the bays to add the required articulation element to the fagade as discussed in our telephone conversation yesterday. Please see the attached redlined plan from the Current Planning Department. The false windows must include sills and lintels. I recommend that the portion of the false windows that is intended to mimic the look of the glazed area be comprised of CMU of the darker color as used in the buildings base treatment. If you are at all uncertain what I am after with this comment please call to arrange a meeting with me so we can discuss it in person. e. The alternative compliance request dated December 8, 2000 from EDAW is not specific to the applicable review criteria. Please refer to the specific language in 3.2.1(N)(2) of the LUC, which reads as follows: (2) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan for purposes of determining whether it accomplishes the purposes of this Section as required above, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative preserves and incorporates existing vegetation in excess of minimum standards, protects natural areas and features, maximizes tree canopy cover, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access, or demonstrates innovative design and use of plant materials and other landscape elements. The purpose of the Landscaping and Tree Protection Section of the code is found in Section 3.2.1(B) which reads as follows: (B) Purpose. The intent of this Section is to require preparation of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build-up, contribute to visual quality and continuity within and between developments, provide screening and mitigation of potential conflicts between activity areas and site elements, enhance outdoor spaces, reduce erosion and stormwater runoff, and mitigate air pollution. f. The December 8, 2001 letter does not say how the proposal to remove the tree accomplishes the purposes of the Section equally well as leaving the tree in place would. You have presented a common sense argument that makes a lot of sense, however, common sense is not one of the review criteria that can be used to grant an alternative compliance request. The request letter talks about efforts that have been taken to "compensate for the loss of the tree"' but the letter does not explain how this mitigation is 2 Commur Planning and Environmental S. ices Current Planning City of Fort Collins STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Bob Jacobsen Gensler Architects 1625 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 January 10, 2001 Staff has reviewed your re -submittal for Arbor Plaza Soundtrack Car Audio Install, and we offer the following comments: COMMENTS: Stormwater Utility Department, Transportation Planning, Technical Services (formerly Mapping & Drafting), Engineering, Post Office, Ft. Collins - Loveland Water District & South Ft. Collins Sanitation District, Zoning, AT&T Digital Services, Water Conservation, : a. Please see the attached comment sheets and/or redlined items from these departments. 2. Current Planning: a. The project is ready to go to hearing with the exception of a few details that need to be addressed on the site plan and elevation drawings. Please revise these two drawings and submit them directly to me (Troy Jones). Thi< does not have to be a full blown resubmittal. I will review the plans within a few days, and once I have determined that the comments have been addressed, we can schedule a Type 1 hearing. b. Upon approval, we will need to receive a submittal addressing 100% of all the outstanding comments for final compliance review. Once staff has reviewed this submittal and agrees that everything has been 100% addressed, we will request mylars. c. I anticipate that you will submit the requested revisions within a week or two, however section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code requires that an applicant submit revisions based on this letter within 900days or the project application becomes null and void. d. Section 3.5.3(A) of the LUC requires that the building be designed to "promote the design of an urban environment that is built to human scale to encourage attractive street fronts and other connecting walkways that 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020