Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOURTYARD COMMONS (TO LANDINGS BAY) - PDP - 38-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)Under the development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The amount of time spent on revisions is up to the applicant. 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. Sincerely, 4mpd�- Steve Olt Project Planner cc: Engineering Stormwater Utility Zoning Water & Wastewater Traffic Operations Transportation Planning Natural Resources Advance Planning Lagunitas Company Northern Engineering King Surveyors Inc. Project File) 25. The handicapped access ramps at the pedestrian crossings along the two streets should be moved back to provide a more straight directional movement, without directing someone in a wheelchair out to the street. 26. The Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch company will have to sign the utility plans and subdivision plat. Plannino 27. The LUC should be referred to for the garage door standards. A modification of the standards may be required. The major walkway spine standard is not being met. 28. The ability for truck movement through the site appears to be very, very tight and maybe not acceptable. Please check with Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority to determine if the emergency access drive widths and turning radius are adequate and acceptable. 29. Some buildings may be more than 40' high, requiring special review. Natural Resources 29. The LUC now requires a minimum 50' wide setback for buildings from top of the adjacent ditch bank. 30. The limits of development must be shown along the ditch. 31. A 12'x14' trash enclosure should be provided to allow for a recycling bin to be included. 32. How is trash pick-up going to be handled in this development? There do not appear to be very many trash enclosures and where are they. One trash hauler should be used for the development to prevent many trucks having to come into the project. Transportation Planning - 33. The sidewalks as shown are not, for the most part, handicapped accessible. The internal pedestrian circulation system needs to be looked at and probably modified to provide for more direct handicapped access routes throughout the entire development (residential and office). This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly staff meeting on December 30, 1998: Stormwater 14. The storm sewer along the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch has to be compacted and stabilized. 15, The applicant did not analyze emergency flow situations in the drainage report. 16. There are significant issues surrounding the development and ditch interface. The issues need to be identified before the next round of review. A meeting with John Moen of the Ditch Company is recommended. Engineering 17. The sidewalk connections at the driveways into the development from the adjacent streets should be detached. 18. How is this development tying its water services into the existing water mains? 19. The City will not require this developer to cut JFK Parkway for utility installation. 20. The subdivision plat for this project currently is not vacating the existing easements that need to be vacated and the necessary new easements need to be dedicated. 21. The utility, drainage & access easements as shown on the subdivision plat, saying that they will be limited to paved parking and concrete sidewalk area as delineated on the Site Plan, is unacceptable. The subdivision plat is a legal and binding document that must stand on its own regarding dedication of easements and right-of-way. It cannot depend on a Site Plan (not recorded in the County) to identify these easements. Also, the plat must show how the lots or building envelopes (A - H & 8 - 12) can be located on the ground and that they do not contain utility, drainage & access easements. Where are lots or envelopes 1 - 7 on this plat? 22. The entrance islands at JFK Parkway and Landings Drive have to be behind (back out of) the new street rights -of -way. 23. The geometrics of the entry from Landings Drive may have to be redesigned. 24. There must be a minimum 20' wide access drive at the entries to the development. The access drives on both sides of the center islands at both entries to the development are only 15' wide. 8. Eric Bracke, the City's Traffic Engineer, stated that the painted crosswalk on JFK Parkway will not be allowed without modifications, including a pedestrian refuge. 9. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company offered the following comments: a. PSC needs to install a 6" steel main between Bockman Drive and Boardwalk Drive on the east side of JFK Parkway. b. PSC has an existing 10' wide utility easement (recorded, Reception #93003970) that should be shown on the subdivision plat. No grading, fencing, trees, or other utilities are allowed in this easement without prior written consent of PSC. There is an existing 6" steel main in this easement. C. The proposed routing of gas lines as shown on the colored Utilities Coordination Plan (12/08/98) are not acceptable. d. Due to a multitude of problems too numerous to list, a utility coordination meeting is required. 10. A copy of the comments received from Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments are on a red -lined set of utility plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Roger, at 221-6681, if you have questions about his comments. 11. A copy of the comments received from Basil Harridan of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. See the red -lined copies of the drainage report and utility for additional comments. Please contact Basil, at 221-6035, if you have questions about his comments. 12. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. See red -lined copies of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and utility plans for additional comments. Please contact Mark, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 13. A copy of the comments received from Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department is attached to this letter. See the red -lined copy of the Site Plan for additional comments. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about her comments. C. Natural Resources needs to see the drainage/grading plans for the off -site detention pond that has wetland vegetation in it, if the applicant is still planning on draining into this pond. Please contact Kim, at 221-6750, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department offered the following comments: a. The ditch access easement looks tight/impossible as shown, without driving on the pedestrian walkway in this development. b. Regarding the Garage Door standards in Section 3.5.2(E) of the LUC, the idea is that units can face a second street or a major walkway spine. This concept is being shortchanged and the ditch is being crowded. In any case, make the walk 5' wide as defined. C. Entry walks and driveways. Straighten and connect the walkways as shown on the marked up plans, enclosed. There may be a loss of garage stalls. Streets are already omitted across the site and this is the least that should be done to connect walkways into the site at the entrances. d. The south side is begging for a sidewalk to complete the loop. There may have to be a loss of parking spaces; however, once again the building and parking have squeezed out logical, comfortable urban improvements that should go with this intensive development. Please contact Clark, at 221-6225, if you have questions about these comments. 6. You are proposing a change in the name of the development from Courtyard Commons to Landings Bay. This obviously has to be done by the applicant by making the change on future revisions and documentation to be submitted to the City. 7. Bruce Vogel of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. Enclosed is a preliminary layout for the L&P electric system. Compared to the applicant's plan there doesn't seem to be any major conflicts. However, a utility coordination meeting would be a very good idea. b. As shown on the enclosed plan, a couple of trees will need to be re- located to conform to the City's utility/tree separation standards. Please contact Bruce, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these comments. Commu. j Planning and Environmental Current Planning City of Fort Collins January 8, 1999 Linda Ripley VF Ripley Associates, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Linda, vices Staff has reviewed your revisions for the COURTYARD COMMONS, Project Development Plan (PDP) development proposal that were submitted to the City on December 8, 1998, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This development proposal is on property that is in the E - Employment Zoning District. Residential and commercial/retail (office) uses are defined as Secondary Uses in Section 4.22(D)(1) Land Use Standards of the LUC and these uses shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan. A modification of the standard is necessary and has been requested by the applicant. It is being reviewed by staff as part of this development proposal. 5 2. John Moen of the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch Company stated that it is hard to tell how much right-of-way they have by looking at the plans. Also, it appears that the sanitary sewer line crosses the ditch and they need to see the plans for that crossing. The Ditch Company cannot approve these plans at this time. 3. A copy of the comments received from the Zoning Department is attached to this letter. 4. Kim Kreimeyer, the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following comments: a. Trash enclosures should be designed to incorporate recycling (please see the attachments). b. Limits of Development need to be designated along the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020