Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROMONTORY - PDP - 32-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)cc: Engineering Stormwater Utility Zoning Light & Power Water & Wastewater Transportation Planning Advance Planning VF Ripley Associates, Inc. JR Engineering Project File #32-99 31. The modification requests as submitted (dated November 24, 1999) do not cite the standard for which they are being requested and they really do not make sense. The justifications do not appear to be relevant to the issues. 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. Depending on how the building height is determined, some 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. 34. Additional comments are included on a red -lined set of Site, Landscape, and Building Elevation Plans. Natural Resources (Kim Kreimeyer) 35. Show a detail of the storm drainage into the ditch. Add a note to Sheets 6 & 7 of the utility plans about burying and reseeding the rip -rap. 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 erelyp�� �t Project Planner 21. The sidewalk against the ditch along the south side of the project is only about 5' off the top of bank. This could be a problem. 22. The internal vehicular network should be redesigned and configured to be a private "street", not a private "driveway". Transportation Planning (Mark Jackson & Kathleen Reavis) 23. City staff does not think that staff should support the request for a modification of the standard in Section 3.5.2(C)(1) of the LUC pertaining to Building Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. 24. The basic site layout does not address the pedestrian goals as set forth in the LUC. A vehicular and/or pedestrian connection to Troutman Parkway is one possible solution to the pedestrian circulation issue. 25. Staff should sit down with the developer to discuss the pedestrian circulation issue. Planning 26. How to address the residential units for emergency response reasons is important. 27. More screening, in the form of berming and landscaping, is needed along the west property line between the residential units and the Post Office parking lot, and as screening of the parking lot in the office portion of this development. 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. This development plan should be redesigned to address the applicable standards in the LUC. 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 currently proposed pedestrian walkway system would appear to be a "band - aid" approach. Staff thinks that the intent of the LUC could and should be satisfied. 9. 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. 10. 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. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly staff meeting on December 15. 1999: Stormwater (Basil Hamdan 11. An agreement is needed from the Larimer County Canal No. 2 to allow storm water from this development to be discharged into the ditch. 12. How do the flows from Boardwalk Drive that go through this site get into the detention pond? 13. Who maintains the pipe along the west property that carries storm water from the development to the north? 14. The utility plans do not clearly show what happens to the storm water on the private driveways. Please show cross -sections. 15. The utility plans look "OK" from a storm drainage standpoint. Engineering (Marc Virata) 16. There is a requirement for a 15' utility easement (outside of the street right-of- way) along Boardwalk Drive. The office buildings must be set back outside of the easement, which would necessitate a request for a modification of the standard in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) of the LUC. 17. Reduce the curb return radii from 25' to 20'. 18. Provide a detail for the enhanced crosswalks on the utility plans. 19. The sight distance easement language on the plans must be revised. 20. The driveway entrys into the development must be concrete from the edge of the street to the property line. C. Cannot find 27 standard parking spaces. There are only 16 spaces. The attached and detached garages and handicapped spaces all add up, but the standard spaces do not. Spaces in the driveways of garages do not count towards the required minimum number of parking spaces. d. Screening is required between the parking lot in the office complex (between Buildings 4 & 5) and the west property line. Please see Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the LUC. e. Add trees and shrubs along the west property line to provide screening from the Post Office parking lot to the residential units. Provide a diagram of "typical" building perimeter landscaping. g. Indicate building heights on the side and rear elevations. Also, show the height of the garages. h. Some buildings appear to be over 40' in height, which requires a Shadow Analysis. Please contact Jenny or Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about their comments. 4. Kim Kreimeyer, the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following comments: a. Show a detail of the storm drainage outfall. b. Add "and reseed" to Sheets 6 & 7 of the utility plans. Please see the red - lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 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. A copy of the Current Planning Department comment sheet is attached to this comment letter. 7. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company stated that a utility coordination meeting is required due to the "tightness" of the site. 8. A copy of the comments received from Jeff Hill 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 Jeff, at 221-6854, if you have questions about his comments. Comm 'ty Planning and Environmenta' trvices Current Planning �v1 2 1 Citv of Fort Collins December 22, 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 revisions for the PARK PLACE, Project Development Plan (PDP) development proposal that were submitted to the City on November 24, 1999, and would like to offer the following comments: 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 close to 50% of the overall size of the property; 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) stated that they will not make any plans to service this project until a Broadband Utility Easement, also called a Service Agreement, is completed with our Commercial Accounts person, Reneta Santroro. She may be contacted at (303)419-3106 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. Jenny Nuckols and Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. There are still only 4 trash enclosures, which do not appear to be sufficient. Several more should be added, especially near Building 'F' b. If there is building -mounted lighting proposed it should be shown on the Building Elevations. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020