HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROMONTORY - PDP - 32-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)• Provide the sight distance easement noted above on the plat.
• Provide sight distance easement restrictions language on the plat and revise the Plat
Language. (Enclosed) .
• Signatures are needed on the plat of the company in control of the Larimer Canal No. 2.
Utility Plans
• Please provide a detail for the northwest driveway entrance. As shown on the plan, we
require driveways to be concrete to the property line. In addition, provide a detail of the
pedestrian crossing at the driveways, will pedestrian ramps be needed?
• Show where vertical curb and gutter and the outfall curb and gutter (provided in the detail
sheet) are used specifically on the site.
• The street repair on Boardwalk should be expanded as noted.
• In the General Notes, replace all occurrences of "Director of Engineering" with "City
Engineer" and add the following to the end of General Note No. 5: The finished patch shad
blend in smoothly into the existing surface. All large patches shall be paved with an asphalt
lay -down machine. In streets where more than one cut is made, an overlay of the entire street
width, including the patched area, may be required. The determination of need for a complete
overlay shall be made by The City Engineer at the time the cuts are made.
Landscape Plans
• Show the sight distance easements on the plan along with the sight distance easement
language as noted on the plat.
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: September 29, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #32-99 Park Place Project Development Plan —
Type II LUC
PLANNER: Steve Olt
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: October 27, 1999
❑ No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Site Plan:
• Parking stalls off the driveway connecting to Boardwalk Drive are required to be setback 100
feet from Boardwalk Drive based on the ADT generated by this site. Please note that 6
parking stalls for the residential and 5 for the commercial are not allowed.
• Provide a sight distance easement as shown on sheet 4 of the utility plan. Building 2 and
perhaps Building 3 will need to be relocated. The site distance easement in proximity to
Building 5 may need to be modified. Please provide a plan of the site to include 200 more
feet of Boardwalk Drive heading northwest in order to determine the exactness of the sight
distance easement needed.
• The northwest entrance needs 20' of lane width on both sides, 15' is not acceptable for the
Poudre Fire Authority [3.6.6(D)(2)]. (PFA has indicated in their comments that a 16'
minimum exit is sufficient and as such, 20' is not required.)
• Are the commercial buildings 2 stories? The site plan indicates so, but the architectural
elevations show a window at an apparent third level. Is this solely a window for a vaulted
ceiling?
Plat:
• The plat needs to delineate the internal roadway to the site as an "Emergency Access
Easement".
Date: 77 Signature:
PLEASE S ND 60PIES lk PLAT
OF MARKED REVISIONS: A SITE
UTILITY NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS
LANDSCAPE
3. Several of your current notes don't make sense, or conflict with city standards for
erosion control. After you have added city erosion control notes and revised your
own, more comments may be forthcoming. These cannot be made until that
resubmittal.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redline plans and report for additional review comments.
ParkPlace-l.doc
16. Based on the drainage plan, flows from the Boardwalk Drive portion of basin 102 are
to enter the site at the north entrance. However, the spot elevations shown on the
grading plan do not seem to indicate this. Please clearly show with spot and flowline
elevations that the flow will enter the site.
RESPONSE:
17. Please make the noted changes to the stone sewer profiles (see redline plans). .
RESPONSE:
18. Please provide details for the retaining walls and the Type C area inlet.
RESPONSE:
19. Although the proposed water quality outlet structure is acceptable, these structures
have been known to clog easily and provide drainage problems. Attached with these
comments are new outlet structure details that have been developed by the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District. Please consider these designs for the proposed
outlet structure. If the old structure is used, please provide a note that the structure
should not be fully installed (no gravel pack) until the potential for sediment entering
the pond is eliminated.
RESPONSE:
Erosion/Sediment Control Comments
1. The city standard erosion control notes need to be on the plan. Then add to them the
pertinent notes from those you have currently on the plan, but only those that don't
contradict or conflict with the city standard notes.
RESPONSE:
2. One note needs to clearly state that the detention area/swale along the west boundary
must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading, otherwise that side must be
protected with silt fencing.
RESPONSE:
ParkPlace-l.doc
9. Please provide easements for the off -site grading proposed south of the detention
pond and the detention pond outlet pipe.
RESPONSE:
10. The report has calculations for the detention pond spillway, but it is not shown on the
plans. Please show a cross-section of the spillway on the plans and provide spot
elevations on the grading plan that indicate the length, spillway elevation, and top -of -
berm elevation. Also, please review and revise the erosion control needs for the
spillway considering a 25% slope (4:1) when calculating the velocity.
RESPONSE:
11. The soils infonnation at the beginning of the report indicates clay soils at the site.
Please use a more reflective runoff coefficient for pervious areas of 0.20 as shown in
Table 3-3 of the SDDC.
RESPONSE:
12. The swale in basin 103 has approximately 1 % slope. Please provide a trickle pan or
underdrain for this swale per Section 7.2 of the SDDC.
RESPONSE:
13. Please make the noted changes to the hydrology calculations (see redline report).
RESPONSE:
14. Please show the WSEL of the Larimer Canal No. 2 for the pond storm sewer profile.
Also, please document how the tailwater elevation for the canal was obtained.
RESPONSE:
15. The FAA method of computing required detention storage does not take into account
the increased volume of runoff that occurs at the end of the new rainfall IDF tables.
We have run a SWMM that shows there should be an increase of 15% to the pond
volume from what the FAA method indicates. Please consider this in the sizing of the
detention pond.
RESPONSE:
ParkPlace-l.doc
3. A small portion of the post office site near the northwest comer of the site will drain
to the western Swale. Please consider these flows in the hydrology calculations. Like
with basin 102a (see comment 1), flows from this area should be considered in the
spillway calculations.
RESPONSE:
4. The retaining wall for the detention pond appears to cut off the proposed Swale on the
west side of the site. Please provide conveyance for these flows.
RESPONSE:
5. Please provide crosspans at the northern entrance to the site (after the flow enters the
site from Boardwalk Drive), at the pond entrance in the southern portion of the site,
and at the southern entrance to the site on Boardwalk Drive. Please show spot
elevations for the crosspans on the grading plan and provide a crosspan detail.
RESPONSE:
6. The proposed Swale on the west side of the site appears to have varying slopes,
mostly lower than 2% (except at the upstream section). Please consider the changes
in slope by either using the lowest slope in the calculations or providing additional
cross -sections. Also, please provide a trickle pan or underdrain in the portions of the
Swale that have less than 2% slope per Section 7.2 of the City of Fort Collins Storm
Drainage Design Criteria (SDDC).
RESPONSE:
7. Please provide conveyance for nuisance flows under the sidewalks in basin 103.
RESPONSE:
8. The report indicates that curb cuts and sidewalk chases will be provided at the end of
basins 104 and 105a along Boardwalk Drive. Please show the exact location of these
facilities on the plans, including spot elevations. Also, please show the swales that
will carry these flows to basin 103.
RESPONSE:
ParkPlace-Ldoc
DATE: September 29, 1999 TO: Stormwater Utility
PROJECT: #32-99 Park Place Project Development Plan -
Type II LUC
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
October 27, 1999
ws from the
nd the the detention
te
the computed site release
a final release rate carry h
The method of adding sewer connection that will carry the
storm sewer and basin l0ovldeoa storm connection
Canal No - 2• The
existing table• Please p to the Larimate
pond is not accep storm sewer all the way to the allowable release calculations -
flows from the existing illwe
then included asuflows to be passed in the sp
additional flow butra
from the pond,
,ESPONSE:
minimal with
the first comment, the release rate from the site will b=t of flow e very ailed to
Based on l urat. n. Please minimiZbasin 105bu co be rep
at isfree
ading conf g onions of
the proposed gY ears that p ears that a swale and storm
released from the site. It appears
and It also appears pond. Please
flows from most of basin 107 to the detention
direct more fl°"`' to the detention p
system could carry
consider these alternatives in the design.
RESPONSE:
Date: Signature:
cu (;"f'e"ve 06i-
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Maalc v;;6_6L
Plat qOSite Drainage Report
Utility &edline Utility Landscape
Otherpf5 WhO
City of Fort Collins
profile views.
➢ Show and label any concrete encasement of sewers which cross above or within
18 vertical inches of water mains.
➢ Include the following note on site plan:
• Any work on water and/or sewer lines which requires removal of decorative
surfacing shall be repaired with an asphalt patch and shall be the
owner/developers responsibility to repair decorative surfacing.
➢ See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments.
Date: 2 ! "� Signature: 0,%'�
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
X PLAT X SITE _DRAINAGE REPORT _OTHER
X UTILITY X REDLINE UTILITY X LANDSCAPE
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT
City of Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET
Current Planning
DATE: September 29, 1999 DEPT: Water & Wastewater
PROJECT: #32-99 Park Place Project Development Plan —
Type II LUC
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, October 27, 1999
➢ A meeting is needed to discuss the following comments. Please contact Jeff
Hill at 221-6674 to arrange a time.
➢ Coordinate landscape design with civil design and provide the required
landscape/utility separations distances.
➢ Label sizes of all water and sewer services.
➢ Place all water service meter pits as close to mains as possible.
➢ Curb stops must be located in utility easements and landscape areas. Meter pits
must be within 2 feet of curb stops.
➢ Provide a minimum of 4 feet between outside wall of meter pit and any
permanent structure.
➢ Are 3-inch fire lines adequate for these buildings? The City Of Fort Collins
does not permit 3-inch gate valves within our system. Use X" x 4" tee W/ T.B.
and 4" G.V. W/ 4" x 3"reducer, on all 3-inch fire lines.
➢ The existing water and sewer mains on the southwest corner of this development
must be used or abandoned at the main. Provide complete details on the
abandonment of these mains.
➢ Will and irrigation tap be needed for this development? Show and label its
location.
➢ Show all fire lines, water mains, storm sewers and sanitary sewer crossings in all
0
a
ct,
l2. .
15.
4tjc6 L¢1 -6r wot Oti fbev-5,
LWA
f�am. �,d?
.�.
tie zr Ku.� jx-r$ caz l
lu and Arvre� 'k k p - o 30, UXo . -( •� l Z * -,5 7 .
Ls tea fie.
'{�cde� �n ►�+.ovtlwe.,�� �`, v. �GQ Cr�„k' e� zinc cQ.we 1.1.E �..� u..u.��s � r. �{ {n�
w; u ire U"
br• 4kZs , -C(ne;, .i arc ar0i wkz,+O�vttr� ie- vtA-
�LYAIF�
'JIM
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Callins
Current Plannine
DATE: September 29, 1999 TO: Planner
PROJECT: #32-99 Park Place Project Development Plan
Type II LUC
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
October 27, 1999
2. judock.. ( 4ec 4+'oe -taP.a.xJtvia"
ice )w,�c A. ej.-.C�CAAX� 4%*d-
�-, t'P-�• `� "-Ear. , 0 '
tun �a lS wder
at[� it `vevJ �-% wi g%) �t�r w•vvc Ul��.w� D-� CaE�
Vr741 � �l.�c.� • � �a�c� v�� dear.
5• !�c
t-E n e'� u► kM -evt
a wit' �ra'S� w.ed.�'�►. �L,-�� 3.1.2(�%�t) �A) l5 ►1CG'es`�'
CHECK HERE IFF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_Plat V Site _Drainage Report Other
_Utility _Redline Utility Zandscape .V (?il•�lc`a�-5
�an
City of Fort Collins
eueX)—�
ADDRESS NUMERALS
Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a
minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown
brick are not acceptable).97UFC901.4.4
WATER SUPPLY
Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved
roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute
at a residual pressure of 20 psi.. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the
water department and the fire department. No commercial building can be greater than
300 feet from a fire hydrant. 97UFC901.2.2.2
i2oSz
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Callins
Current Plannine
DATE: September 29, 1999 TO: PFA
PROJECT: #32-99 Park Place Project Development Plan -
Type II LUC
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
October 27 1999 r
OCT 2 9 1999 i
REQUIRED ACCESS: uu
A fire lane is required; this fire lane shall be visible by paintin Lnd signage, and
maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted approva arior to
installation. If a fire lane is not provided, the buildings shall be fire sprinklered.
Any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements in addition to the design
criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies.
ALL FIRE LANES AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS MUST:
➢ be short, straight and flat.
➢ be hard surfaced.
➢ have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and
enforceable.
➢ be visible, in accordance with FCLUC3.6.6(G)
All access roadways must be an all-weather driving surface capable of supporting fire
apparatus. Surfaces shall be asphalt or concrete. Surface criteria may be obtained from
City or County engineering department respectively. Required width is 20 feet at the
entrance from Boardwalk. The exit there is required to be a minimum 16 feet in
width. 97UFC901.2.2.1;901.3;901.4.2;902.2.1 FCLUC3.6.6 2l
Date: �� 2 g- f S Signature: 14cw Are
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other in
_Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins
Commi :y Planning and Environmental _rvices
Building and Zoning Department
City of Fort Collins
Codes and Standards
Amended 5/12/99 #'i'
All Construction within the City of Fort Collins shall comply with current adopted editions of the
Uniform Codes:
1997 Uniform Building Code
1991 Uniform Mechanical Code, possible adoption of the 1997 edition by late 1999.
1997 Uniform Plumbing Code as of May 1999, per State.
1999 National Electrical Code as of June 1999, per State.
1995 Model Energy Code with amendments for residential.
Fort Collins Nonresidential Energy Code, an amended version of ASHRAE/IES 90.1-1989.
Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities, C ABO/ANSI Al17.1-1992, as adopted standard.
Wind Load: design for 100 MPH, Zone C
Dead Load: 15 PSF min.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF
Staff contacts
For questions pertaining to commercial construction, please contact Rick Lee.
For questions which pertain to residential and/or multi family, please contact Dick Valdez.
Both can be reached at 221-6760.
For questions pertaining to required contractor and sub -contractor licensing, please contact
Delynn Coldiron at 221-6767.
Submittals
All submittals for review of construction documents and release of building permit, shall include:
(1) Completed building permit application per building.
(1) Completed application check list for commercial and/or residential.
('_) Complete sets of Colorado professional "Wet Stamped" plans, include: site plans, engineered
foundations„ architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing drawings.
Completed Energy Code compliance forms. y
=`: \ •r:h ",.ii ;;� -.%kfm r • P.O. 5,ix _80 • Fort Cuilins, CO 805_2-0550 • (970) 2-21-6760 • FAX (970) 224-6i34
rMIZZ
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: September 29, 1999 TO: Building Inspections
PROJECT: #32-99 Park Place Project Development Plan -
Type II LUC
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Date:
October 27,1999
ro T .M H
OCT 0 8 1999
L,-----
With the limited information provided I am attaching the Building Code items that
are enforced in the City of Fort Collins.
The multiple buildings on the same property must still satisfy the fire resistive
exterior wall requirements as addressed in table 5-A of the current code.
For the commercial units please comply with the accessibility standards found in ,
ANSI 117.1 and plumbing fixture count in Appendix 29-A of the current Code.
The requirement of minimum accessibility units in the residential and garage
units can be found in Code section 1103.
Multi -family dwelling units may also have special fire separation requirements
found in the Code.
Since stone is being used on the exterior of some of the structures a commonly
missed construction requirement is the weather resistive barrier of section 1403
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_Plat _Site _Drainage Report ' _Other
_Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape
19.
The 8 parking spaces propuoed in the driveways of Bldgs. A,B, & r
3.2.2(D)(2)
Peter
don't count toward meeting the minimum if they are behind the
garages
20
No more than 25% of this plan can be residential in the E district since
4.22(D)(2)
Peter
residential is a secondary use. It appears that about 50% of the plan is
residential. Are they asking for a modification?
21
the 20' wide drive aisle west of Building 1 needs to be 24' wide since
3.2.2(L)
Peter
it's a double loaded driveway.
ZONl* DEPT. COMMENT �HEET
Project: 32-99 Park Place PDP Type II LUC
Date: October 8, 1999
No.
Comment:
LUC Section
Reviewer
1
Residential parking requirements are minimums - a minimum of 79
Jenny
spaces is required - only 76 are shown
2
Exactly what area is being referred to as the central park - courtyard?
Jenny
The residential units front to streets, driveways etc. They don't front
onto a "courtyard" as noted by #6 of the planning objectives letter. I
don't consider roadways, parking etc to be a courtyard.
3
1 only see 4 trash enclosures for 46 res units and 5 comm bldgs. I
Jenny
don't belive this will be sufficient. Please review and perhaps add
several mre enclosures with adequate room for recyclables bins.
4
Add trees and shrubs along W.. Property line to screeen residential use
Jenny
form post office use.
5
remove topo lines from final site and landscape plans
Jenny
6
Landscape plan is incomplete. Provide complete list to include shrubs,
Jenny
perennials ground cover etc. and a count of those items.
7
Provide a diagram of typical bldg perimeter landscaping
Jenny
8
Label elevations to coincide with their bldg letter or number, i.e. which
Jenny
building is the carriage house?
9
Show bldg height on elevations
Jenny
10
Bldgs over 40' high require a shadow analysis
Jenny
11
Is bldg E a garage only or res. With garages? Please clarify.
Jenny
12
Show bldg mtd lights on bldg elevations.
Jenny
13
Show rear elevations of garages
Jenny
14
This is in the neighborhood sign district. Show placement of signage
Jenny
on commercial bldgs
15
Bldg. 5 & garages have no typicals for envelope or footprint
Gary
dimensions shown on site plan.
16
Discrepency between general note #3 (max. bldg. height 25'-30') and
Gary
elevation drawings indicating 40' height on residential and 35.5' on
office bldgs.
17
No elevation for bldg 5.
Gary
18
Indicate light pole locations on site plan.
Gary
cc: Engineering
Stormwater Utility
Zoning
Light & Power
Water & Wastewater
Transportation Planning
Advance Planning
VF Ripley Associates, Inc.
JR Engineering
Project File #32-99
34. Depending on how the building height is determined, the residential buildings
may exceed 40' in height, requiring a Building Height Special Review as part of
this development review. Please contact the Zoning Department for assistance.
Their phone number is 221-6760.
35. Additional comments are included on a red -lined set of Site, Landscape, and
Building Elevation Plans.
Transportation Planning (Mark Jackson)
36. Please describe and better define the pedestrian areas along the proposed
private drives in the project. The 4' width outside of the unobstructed drive lane is
too narrow. As a minimum, the width that was approved with the Landings Bay
development plan must be maintained.
37. The sidewalk connections must be at least 5' wide.
38. The pedestrian circulation within the office park is less than adequate. Especially
Building 5, and Building 4 somewhat, are detached and isolated from the rest of
the development.
This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be
forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing
agencies.
Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90 day plan revision
submittal time -frame mandated by the City. The 90 day turnaround period begins
on the date of the comment letter prepared by the project planner in the Current
Planning Department. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City
departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project
planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings)
following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed
and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board
for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an
opening on the agenda.
Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The
number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached
Revisions Routing Sheet. You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to
discuss these comments.
Si cereOA
ly,
tilt
Project Planner
Planning
27. It is being suggested that the applicant do a "stand alone" request for the
modification to the standard, Section 4.22(D)(2) of the LUC, regarding the % of
residential on the development plan. This means submitting the request for
review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board prior to moving forward
with the PDP.
28. This development plan does not meet the requirements in Sections 3.5.2(C)(1) &
(2) of the LUC regarding Orientation to a Connecting Walkway and Street -Facing
Facades. Buildings A, B, and F are marginal in their orientation and primary
entrances meeting the intent of the LUC and Buildings C and D do not meet the
requirements in any way.
29. This development plan, with the proposed "tandem parking" for residential
Buildings A, B, and F, does not meet the requirement in Section 3.2.2(D)(2) of
the LUC regarding provision for unobstructed vehicular access to and from a
public street for all off-street parking spaces. Obviously, if a flat or townhome unit
has a car parked in the garage and the driveway outside of it then the car in the
garage is obstructed from free movement to the nearest street.
30. The residents present at the neighborhood meeting held on September 9, 1999
asked if there was a possibility that an access from this project directly onto
Troutman Boulevard could be provided. If there was a public or private street
running through the property, connecting Boardwalk Drive with Troutman
Parkway, the concerns expressed in comment 27, above, could possibly be
resolved.
31. The residents present at the neighborhood meeting held on September 9, 1999
asked if a traffic signal could be placed at the intersection of Landings Drive and
Boardwalk Drive. City staffs answer to that question is no, a traffic signal cannot
be placed there because it is too close to the intersection of Boardwalk Drive and
JFK Parkway, which has a traffic signal.
32. Office building 4 would appear not to meet the requirement set forth in Section
3.5.3(B)(1) of the LUC regarding the facing of and opening directly onto a
connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage.
33. Possibly a follow-up neighborhood meeting should be held prior to the public
hearing or, at least, contact the people who attended the first neighborhood
meeting to make them aware of the status of the project and how their concerns
have been addressed.
After review of the existing setback from the street to the ditch there may
be a similar setback required on this property.
Please contact Kim, at 221-6641, if you have questions about these comments.
The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly staff meeting on
October 27, 1999:
Stormwater (Basil Hamdan)
17. There is an existing open drainage Swale running north to south along the west
line of this property (on the property). The c.f.s. flow rates in the open channel,
as indicated in the drainage report, are not acceptable. This off -site drainage
must be piped and go directly into the Larimer County Canal No. 2, bypassing
the detention pond on this site.
18. There is some regrading required on this site. The release rate for the on -site
storm drainage must be adjusted.
19. The proposed retaining wall around the detention pond will not work.
20. There are off -site grading easements that are needed and they have not yet
been submitted to the City for review.
21. The subdivision plat and utility plans will require signatures from the Larimer
. County Canal No. 2 Ditch Company.
22. The on -site detention requirement must be updated to meet the City's current
rainfall criteria.
Engineering (Marc Virata)
23. The required sight distance easement along Boardwalk Drive may affect
Buildings 2 and 5.
24. There is a requirement that no parking spaces accessed directly from the
proposed private drive be within 100' of Boardwalk Drive. This requirement could
impact several of the parking spaces at the very north end of the office parking
lot, close to Building 5, and the first 6 parking spaces at the entry into the
residential portion of the development.
25. The width of the drives on each side of the center median at the entry into the
office park must be 20', not 15' as shown.
26. A detail of the entry(s) must be shown on the utility plans.
g. There should be pedestrian crosswalk markings at all drive entrances, in
accordance with Sections 3.2.2(C)(1)(a)&(b) of the LUC.
In. The main parking lot areas need a better defined pedestrian system in
addition to the perimeter sidewalk alignment and design, in accordance
with Sections 3.2.2(C)(5)(a)&(b) of the LUC. By reconfiguring the locations
of ramps and by moving trash enclosure sites, 6' wide pedestrian paths
could be added without the loss of parking.
Please contact Mark, at 416-2029, if you have questions about these comments.
12. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company stated that utilities will need to
coordinate closely due to the "tightness" of the site.
13. A copy of the comments received from Roger Buffington of the
_ - Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this letter. See red -lined copies of
the Site and Landscape Plans and utility plans for additional comments. Please
contact Roger, at 221-6854, if you have questions about his comments.
14. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility
is attached to this comment letter. See the red -lined copies of the drainage
report and utility plans for additional comments. Please contact Donald, at 221-
2053, if you have questions about his comments.
15. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering
Department is attached to this comment letter. See red -lined copies of the Site
Plan and utility plans for additional comments. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750,
if you have questions about his comments.
16. Kim Kreimeyer, the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following
comments:
a. The design of the trash enclosures should include a provision for a
separate pedestrian entrance, preferably not gated to ensure easy
access.
b. If there are any prairie dogs on this site they must be humanely eradicated
or relocated prior to any construction, including overlot grading.
C. Show the Larimer County Canal No. 2 on the Site and Landscape Plans.
d. Show a detail of the drainage outfall.
e. Does the City permit drainage flows into this canal?
5. A copy of the comments received from Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire
Authority is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if
you have questions about his comments.
6. Ron Mills of the Right -Of -Way Department stated that this is City property
obtained from the Boardwalk/Heart SID. Closing of this transaction is scheduled
to be held on or before March 4. 2000.
7. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department stated that many questions
arise, regarding this development plan, on how to serve power to the site. Some
changes appear to be necessary. Light & Power is strongly encouraging that a
utility coordination meeting be scheduled prior to final plan review.
8. Ward Stanford of the Traffic Operations Department stated that he has no
- comments regarding this development plan.
9. A copy of the Current Planning Department comment sheet is attached to this
comment letter.
10. Rick Richter of the Engineering Pavement Department stated that there are
high swell soils on this site. Public improvements will need soils mitigation.
11. Mark Jackson of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following
comments:
a. Is there a way to better define the difference between parking areas and
pedestrian "plaza" areas on the scored patterned concrete areas?
b. The 4' wide sidewalks should be wider, at least 5' wide.
C. A sidewalk is needed from Building 'F' to Boardwalk Drive.
d. Continue the pedestrian walk along the rear entrance to Building W
onward to the rear entrances to Buildings 'C' & 'D'.
e. The proposed crosswalk at the driveway curve at the southwest part of
the site leads directly into the detention pond. Please redirect it to better
serve Buildings 'A' & 'B' or 'C' & 'D'.
Is there adequate sight distance at the Boardwalk Drive/High Pointe Drive
intersection for an unlimited access entrance/exit? People drive very fast
around this curve and it would appear not to be a safe place for an
unlimited access.
Commu y Planning and Environmental vices
Current Planning,
City of Fort Collins
October 28, 1999
Lagunitas Park Place, Inc.
c/o Jon Prouty
3307 South College Avenue, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
Dear Jon,
Staff has reviewed your documentation for the PARK PLACE, Project Development
Plan (PDP) development proposal that was submitted to the City on September 29,
1999, and would like to offer the following comments:
1. This development proposal, being in the E - Employment Zoning District, is
identified as a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review under the City's Land
Use Code (LUC). Residential uses are permitted uses subject to a Type II review
in the District. Office uses are permitted uses subject to an administrative (Type
1) review. However, residential uses are defined as Secondary Uses in Section
4.22(D)(2) Land Use Standards of the LUC and these uses shall occupy no
more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. The residential
portion of the development plan appears to make up about 35 - 40% of the
overall size of the property (excluding the detention area); therefore, a
modification of the standard is necessary and must be requested by the
applicant. A modification request has been submitted to the City and is being
reviewed by staff.
2. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Cable Services (formerly TCI of Fort Collins)
n — stated that they would like to see a minimum of 9' of utility easement along
Boardwalk Drive.
3. A copy of the comments received from representatives of the Zoning
dV,- Department is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Jenny, Peter, or
Gary at 221-6760 if you have questions about their comments.
4. A copy of the comments received from Rick Lee of the Building Inspection
VVe- Department is attached to this comment letter.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020