Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROMONTORY - PDP - 32-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)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. Sinc rely, Steve It Ui Project Planner cc: Engineering Stormwater Utility Zoning Light & Power Water & Wastewater Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Advance Planning VF Ripley Associates, Inc. JR Engineering Project File #32-99 28. Item 11 in the response letter dated 2/16/00 regarding the necessary agreement from the adjacent ditch company to accept storm water... has this been provided to the City? Staff does not think it has. 29. Item 21 in the response letter dated 2/16/00 regarding a sidewalk along the south side of Buildings A & B...how do the residents get from the building entry to the sidewalk along Boardwalk Drive. Also, it would appear that it is possible to get a sidewalk connection from this development to JFK Parkway between the Post Office parking lot and the ditch. This connection is important for easy pedestrian access from the development to the commercial corridor along South College Avenue. 30. Item 25 in the response letter dated 2/16/00 regarding a meeting about pedestrian circulation... has this meeting taken place? 31. The side building elevation for the office buildings (sheet 4 of 4) makes the building look like a 3-story structure. Big windows for an attic. The Site Plan says 2-story. 32. Need more information on the "Alternate building square footage for Buildings 1, 2, and 3". Will this be accomplished horizontally or vertically? 33. Additional comments are included on a red -lined set of Site, Landscape, and Building Elevation Plans. 34. This item is not ready to schedule for the April 6`h P&Z public hearing. It may be best for the applicant to schedule a meeting with Advance Planning, Current Planning, Stormwater, and Poudre Fire Authority to discuss some significant outstanding issues. 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 this comment letter (March 15, 2000) 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. 19. The proposed enhanced crosswalks in the public right-of-way of Boardwalk Drive may be of concern. Please contact Marc to discuss this. Transportation Planning (Mark Jackson) 20. A sidewalk along the south side of Buildings A & B, possibly connecting off -site to the west, should be put back in the project. Planning 21. Modification Request #2 (in the Park Place/Modification Requests document dated February 16, 2000) is not necessary. First of all, no standard in the LUC was cited, and secondly, the parking/no parking designations is not a standard that must be or can be modified by the Planning and Zoning Board. 22. More screening, possibly 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. 23. A sidewalk should be placed along the south side of Buildings A & B and continue along the north side of the ditch west to JFK Parkway (if physically possible). Also, a walkway could possibly go from the internal driveway/walkway along the south side of Building C, south along the west property line, and west along the south side of the Post Office parking lot. It is important to provide a good pedestrian connection from this development west to the commercial corridor along South College Avenue. 24. The references to FDP in the Park Place/Modification Requests document (dated February 16, 2000) should be changed to PDP ( Project Development Plan). 25. There is a marked -up copy of the Modification Request, with suggested revised language, that is being forwarded to the applicant. 26. Item 3, second paragraph, in the response letter dated 2/16/00 regarding "shared parking" — How is this to be accomplished and assured? The Site Plan does not reflect this. Will there be a formal agreement between the office park and the residential project? Also, Section 3.2.2(G) Shared Parking of the LUC states: "In no case shall shared parking include the parking required for residential uses". The proposed parking for the residential portion of the development is still at least 5 spaces short. 27. Item 7 in the response letter dated 2/16/00 regarding a utility coordination meeting... has this meeting been held? Please contact Mark, at 416-2029, if you have questions about these comments. 13. The Mapping Department offered the following comments: a. Using the bearing circled in red (on the red -lined subdivision plat being forwarded to the applicant) and the boundary does not close. The bearing does not match the plat. The exception is OK. b. The name Park Place is a duplicate of an existing plat. C. What are Tracts A through K? d. The legal description and map call aliquote lines on the boundary. The map does not show how they were determined. Please contact Mapping, at 221-6588, if you have questions about these comments. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly staff meeting on December 15, 1999: Stormwater (Basil Hamdan) 14. An agreement is needed from the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch Company to allow storm water from this development to be discharged into the ditch. This is a repeat comment. 15. The water quality design must be changed. The gravel pack design is not acceptable. 16. The utility plans look "OK" from a storm drainage standpoint. Engineering (Marc Virata) 17. On the subdivision plat, areas outside of the Tracts (building envelopes) are defined as utility, drainage, access and emergency access easement. Please check with Marc to determine if there can be a blanket emergency access easement. 18. 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 to the rear of the utility easement and no further to meet the requirement of Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) of the LUC. The building envelopes cannot encroach into the easement (currently shown as close as 8.6' in some locations). 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, Landscape Plan, and utility plans for additional comments. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 11. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Major comments are on the marked -up modification letter. Generally, staff agrees with the modifications but disagrees with much of the 9 pages of material. Please see the attached, typed suggestions. b. Some comments are on the attached red -lined Site Plan. C. Please see the attached pictures for some comments in response to graphics and the concept of "park/courtyard". d. The bottom line is that there is only one major comment and it is sort of a question: Can there be any connection to the southwest? Staff will go look at the site and follow up with either a specific suggestion or a possible retraction of the comment. Please contact Clark, at 221-6225, if you have questions about these comments. 12. Mark Jackson of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Sidewalk widths (connecting east to Boardwalk Drive) are labeled as 4', but some scale to 5'. Which is correct? Transportation Planning had previously requested widening the 4' walks to 5'. b. The modification request states the reasons why a street connection south to Troutman Parkway is problematic. What about a possible pedestrian connection west to JFK Parkway from the southwest corner of this site? C. What happened to the sidewalk/path on the south side of Buildings A & B? Why was it eliminated? d. Many of Transportation Planning's previous comments have been incorporated into this iteration of the Site Plan. As a result, internal pedestrian circulation is good, parking lot auto/pedestrian separation is adequate, and there is good connectivity to the street sidewalk system. Pedestrian street crossings are marked and/or enhanced where necessary. 4. Doug Martine of Light & Power offered the following comments: a. The location of the water stop box/meter for Building B will preclude installation of electric service to Building C. It was agreed at the utility coordination meeting on 1/10/00 that the water service would be relocated. b. The water stop box/meter for Building A will preclude installation of the electric system necessary to serve Buildings A & C. This water system needs to be moved at least to the southerly side of the sidewalk. C. The island between Buildings A & B has been narrowed from the previous plan. Light & Power will need a minimum of 5' on either side of what appears to be a dumpster enclosure for a location of a transformer. Please contact Doug, at 221-6152, if you have questions about these comments. 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. The Current Planning Department comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please see comments and marked -up documents from Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department that are being forwarded to the applicant.. 7. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company offered the following comments: a. The 2' trickle pan along Boardwalk Drive cannot be installed before the gas main because they are sharing the same space in some places. b. The tight site will require extremely close design and construction coordination between all utilities... but it is workable. Please contact Jim, at 225-7843, if you have questions about these comments. 8. A copy of the comments received from Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this comment letter. See red -lined copies of the Site and Landscape Plans, subdivision plat, and utility plans for additional comments. Please contact Jeff, at 221-6854, if you have questions about his comments. 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. b. If a ground level unit is added to the Carriage House then alternative building elevations will need to be provided. C. The commercial parking count is incorrect. The Site Plan shows 74 standard spaces and 8 handicapped spaces, for a total of 82 parking spaces, not 77. Please review this and make the necessary corrections. d. Alternate square footages are being proposed for Buildings 1, 2, and 3. Are the footprints increasing and are the buildings going to be taller? More information is needed and alternate elevations should be provided showing any changes. Otherwise, the developer may have to apply for a minor amendment to the plan later for any changes. e. Screening is required between the parking lot in the office complex (between Buildings 4 & 5) and the west property line along the Post Office. Please see Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the LUC. This is a repeat comment. f. Remove the topography lines from the Final Site Plan (to be recorded), when submitted. g. It is being recommended that the landscaping be phased between the commercial and residential uses. h. This site is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Proposed signage locations must be shown on the Building Elevations. i. Zoning will have to review alternate parking striping on the scored concrete parking areas, ensuring spacing that users can see. Assure that street trees at the north entrance to the site, across from High Pointe Drive, do not create a sight distance problem because of the curvature of Boardwalk Drive. k. The first sentence in the first paragraph below the Plant List on the Landscape Plan appears to be a "type -over". Please contact Jenny or Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about their comments. Commu 'y Planning and Environmental rvices Current Planning ?� ��- Citv of Fort Collins March 15, 2000 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 February 16, 2000, 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 about 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. The Larimer Canal #2 Ditch Company stated that they have no objection to the plans as presented. 3. Jenny Nuckols and Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Only 16 standard parking spaces are shown on the Site Plan (not 23). The attached garage parking count is somewhat confusing. The 5 8-plexes with 6 garages each = 30 spaces, plus 12 garages in the Carriage House = a total of 42 spaces. If the Carriage House will only have 10 spaces (to accommodate a ground level unit) then that needs to be changed on the Site Plan. Either way, there is a total of 64 or 66 parking spaces in the residential area (depending on what is being done with the Carriage House), and a total of 71 parking spaces is required. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020