HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHEROKEE FLYING HEIGHTS - PDP - 17-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (10)2
REPEAT COMMENT: Looks like only 1 trash enclosure. People in Bldgs. 1, 2, 6, and 7 will
have a long way to carry their trash - between 250' and 4007
While this was certainly a concern. After much study both from a planning and
economic standpoint, we have concluded that while this is not ideal it is acceptable.
3
Need to label the picnic tables and bike racks on the site plan.
These items are now labeled.
4
The parking lot at the west end has one island. The landscape plan shows a ramp and walk
going thru it and plants along the side. The parking lot needs 6% interior landscape islands
and each island must contain at least 1 tree (section 3.2.1(E)(5)c. This island needs a tree.
This island has been expanded to contain 6% of the parking area. It now includes a
tree and landscaping.
13
Landscaping required along south side of west parking lot per 3.2.2(J) and 3.2.1(E)(4).
The west parking lot is now set back 16'-0" from the side lot line to comply with 3.2.2(J)
We are placing trees to comply with Section 3.2.2(J) which requires that trees be placed
along side lot lines at 1 per 40'.
14
Indicate on site plan that there is an existing 6' privacy fence on neighbors property along
south lot line adjacent to west parking lot.
A six foot privacy fence has been added along the south lot line.
In response to neighborhood comments, and in an effort to resolve some of the issues that
were raised by staff, we removed one unit from the site plan. This also allowed a reduction
in the parking areas and opened up more green space. This has been an extremely difficult
site given all of the constraints that the economics of affordable housing presents along with
the physical constraints of the area. We believe that the plans is much improved as a result
of all of the City staff input we have received and are confident that we now have a plan
that will meet all applicable criteria.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions, ideas or comments.
Sincerely,
G
Mikal Torgerson
M. Torgerson Architects
PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF
THIS PLAT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY, OR
COLLECTIVELY, THROUGHA PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, IF APPLICABLE. THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OR RECONSTRUCTION OF
SUCH PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR DRIVES NOR SHALL THE CITY HA VE ANY OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT
SUCH STREETS AND/OR DRIVES AS PUBLIC STREETS OR DRIVES.
This note was added to the plat.
31
Landscape Comments:
These comments were made from the previous round of review:
- The scale is incorrect (1 "=20', not 1 "=30)
- Remove trees within the right-of-way for the future street.
This has been corrected
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez
15
No new comments. Issues were resolved in letter to Cameron Gloss dated 4112101 from
Ron Gonzales.
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
5
Site plan needs to show walkway connections from the building entrances to the sidewalk
system.
These connections have been added.
6
REPEAT COMMENT. Bike racks need to be labelled on the site and landscape plans
The bike racks are now labeled.
7
REPEAT COMMENT: Bike racks need to be located where ramp access is available and
does not cause damage to the vegetation.
Bike racks have been relocated to meet these requirements.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
1
REPEAT COMMENT. They've now added the landscape assurance note, but the wording
is not adequate. It needs to state something like "Prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, all landscaping must be installed or secured with an irrevocable, etc...
This note has been changed to reflect this wording.
3.2.1(E)(4)(b) requires "Screening from residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall
six (6) feet in height in combination with plant material and of sufficient opacity to block
at least seventy-five (75) percent of light from vehicle headlights." We are providing
landscaping as well as a six foot fence with crawling ivy. This will block 90%+ of light
from vehicle headlights. The parking was reworked to free up more space in this area
and separate it from the parking let.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Cameron Gloss
27
Bicycle Parking
The applicant may wish to consider several small bicycle parking racks more evenly
distributed through the development. As proposed, the two larger racks are not "near
building entrances" as required under 3.3.2(4)(c).
The large bicycle parking areas have been broken up and placed closer to the building
entrances in order to comply with 3.3.2(4)(c)
28
Plat misspelling
The owner's name is mispelled on the plat
This has been corrected
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
8
The playground in the right-of-way for the future street is inconsistent with City policy.
Please remove all notes pertaining to equipment within this area.
The playground has been removed.
9
A (new) low spot appears to be created along the parking area on the south side of the
private drive. Is this intended?
Yes, this is needed for detention freeboard.
10
The plan set shows unreadable contours. It would still be preferred if the utility plan
drawings were enlarged to a 30 or 20 scale.
This has been clarified.
30
Private Drive note is needed on the plat.
Add the following note (as attached to the utility plan copy of the plat):
.ALL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COSTS OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE
February 4, 2002
Cameron Gloss, AICP
Current Planning Director
City of Fort Collins
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Cameron:
Attached is our response to planning comments.
ISSUES:
Department. Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
11
Friendly suggestion/question on small peaked porch roofs
On Bldg 3 south elevation and Bldg 4 north elevation, these peak features
look a little unusual, not being over the entrances, and not having any visible
horizontal beam or vertical column supports, as is typical for this kind of
feature. Unless I'm missing something, they would be stronger positive
features if they were handled this way. Also, could they in fact project
forward a little bit from the shed roof, with columns supporting a visible beam
and an interesting little peaked structure? (See Enclosed scratches on
elevation drawing)
We acknowledge the consideration of meter banks and the siding with paint
(vs vinyl). One other little question though - could there be some variation in
color shades, and not monotonous repetition of the beige?
Thanks.
In any infill project compatibility is important. This is particularly important
in projects that attempt rather high densities. I think that this was a very
good suggestion. These suggestions were explored, and expanded on
with what I regard as good results.
12
Provide parking lot perimeter landscaping
The parking lot at the rear of the lot, south side, needs to meet 3.2.1(E)(4)(b).
This is a basic, long-standing requirement. Also in this same location, the
sidewalk is squeezed beyond what is useable and reasonable. Please omit
the southernmost stall and use the 9 feet to provide perimeter landscaping
and a more comfortable sidewalk. Please look at this in detail, at 20 scale
minimum, and maybe larger. I don't know the exact parking count, but if this
were to eliminate a unit, that could be beneficial in other ways because of the
tight packing on this rather unusual development parcel.
r
223 Norlh College
fart Collins, CO 80524
970.416.7431
1.888.416.7431
fox: 970.416.7435
(mail: mikol@orchifex.com
hffp://www.archilex.com