HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN NORTH - 50% PDP - 28-99A - CORRESPONDENCE -o I
r
Troy Jon s
City PI ner
M
f. The alternative compliance request needs some reworking of the
justifications. As required in the code in section 2.6.3(H), the justification
letter must clearly identify how the proposed plan will accomplish the
purpose of the Section (as defined in 3.6.3(A) of the LUC) equally well as
would a plan which complies with the standard. You are asking to be allowed
to eliminate on required crossing of the realigned Dry Creek between the
development and the realigned Vine Drive, and you are also requesting to be
allowed to eliminate two required crossings of the Lake Canal.
g. Your justification for the elimination of the Dry Creek crossing is based on
an economic argument. Although this is a compelling argument, it does not
satisfy the criteria, and you have not explained how the elimination of the
crossing will satisfy the purpose of the standard equally well. You may have
better luck justifying the elimination of this required crossing by arguing
that providing another crossing may compromise safety in the event of a
flood along Dry Creek. Stormwater has indicated to me that they could
support that argument.
h. The justification for the elimination of the 2 Lake Canal crossings is for
Natural Resource preservation. The review criteria in 3.6.3(H) for
alternative compliance requests states that the decision maker shall take
into account whether the proposed plan minimizes impacts to natural areas
and features. The Natural Resources department is going out on site on the
afternoon of December 19, 2000 to evaluate the value of the natural
features along the Lake Canal. If I hear from them that your alternative
compliance request for the Lake Canal should be supported because it would
minimize the impact to natural features that they consider valuable, then
this request is fine as proposed. If the Natural Resources Department tells
me that there is not enough value of the natural features along the Lake
Canal to warrant the need to reduce the number of connections across it,
then your justification as proposed will not work.
i. Please submit the same number of copies of each drawing type (as you did
this time) for the next submittal.
Be sure and return any rediined plans 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 221-6750.
Yours truly,
3
5. Natural Resources, Light and Power, Technical Services, Traffic
Operations, Transportation Planning, Poudre Fire Authority, Advance
Planning, Transfort, Quest:
a. I have not received written comments from these departments, when
and if they come in, I will forward them on to you. Many of these
department's issues were discussed verbally at the 12/14 meeting.
b. We would like to preserve the trees along the ditch. The ditch
company has indicated that they are not in the tree maintenance
business, but if a maintenance agreement can be worked out, they may
not clear cut the trees within their easement.
c. If possible the trees in the detention pond should be preserved
(maybe in islands).
d. The bicycle Level of Service is still not documented in the traffic
study.
e. The design doesn't meet the pedestrian level of service requirements
as discussed at the 12/14 meeting. A Vine Drive walkway or a trail
along the ditch to College Avenue may be possible solutions.
f. Clarify that the Redwood connection from the site to the existing
Vine Drive will in fact be part of this PUP.
g. I bicycle connection is needed from the local street, between lots 25
& 26, to the trail along the ditch.
6. Current Planning:
a. We need a utility coordination meeting to resolve setback and utility
conflicts, particularly for the single family attached buildings.
b. It seems we have now reached the level of detail on this project where we
need to review the ON and PDP as parallel but separate projects.
c. As you refine the details on the landscape plan, keep the buffering
requirements between incompatible uses [3.2.1(E)(1)], and the parking lot
perimeter landscaping requirements [3.2.1(E)(4)] in mind.
d. As discussed in the 12/14 meeting, a modification would be necessary for
the rear and side yard setbacks for the single family attached units as
shown. Keep in mind that before staff can support a modification request,
and equal to or better than argument must be made, and the utilities must
be coordinated for those areas that the modification would impact. To get
on the agenda for the 1/18 P&Z meeting for the modification, I need
everything to me by December 27rh.
e. Call me to coordinate how we want to proceed with the ODP. Some of the
information we have seen up to now needs to be part of the ODP.
2
City of Fort Collins
Commui / Planning and Environmental F
Current Planning
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
vices
Russell Lee December 18, 2000
BHA Design
4803 Innovation Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Staff has reviewed your submittal for the 50% submittal for Old Town
- North, and we offer the following comments:
COMMENTS:
1. Water and Sewer Utility Department, Stormwater:
a. See the attached redlines and comment sheet.
2. Stormwater Utility Department, Engineering:
a. All comments from engineering are on the redlines. Engineering
redlines were given to you at the 12/14 meeting.
b. Stormwater comments and redlines were given to you at the 12/14
meeting.
c. Cam McNair, the City Engineer, thinks we can work out a maintenance
agreement between the city and the ditch company for all future
crossings of the Lake Canal for all developments along it. The
Engineering Department has agreed to take charge of this effort.
3. Zoning, AT&T Cable, Forestry, Public Service:
a. Please see the attached comment sheets from these department.
4. Park Planning:
a. Please coordinate the trail adjacent to the ditch with Craig Forman.
b. Coordinate the conversion of the trail in the Redwood alignment into a
street with Craig Forman.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020