HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDWOOD APARTMENTS - PDP - 15-99A - CORRESPONDENCE -the required have then come back with minor amendments to reduce the number of
handicap spaces in order to use those spaces as handicap spaces.
23. Standard parking stalls are required to be 19 feet long. Parked vehicles may overhang a
landscape area or walkway (with 4 feet minimum clearance) with a corresponding two -
foot (2') reduction in paved stall length if a curb or wheel stop is provided. There are
many locations where you are proposing 17 feet long parking stall next to a 4 foot
sidewalk. The stalls either need to be 19 feet long, or the sidewalks adjacent to the
stalls need to be 6 feet wide. Please make sure the site plan labels the width of the
sidewalks adjacent to parking clearly. Refer to Table A and Figure 5 in section 3.2.2(L)
of the LUC.
24. Please label the building envelopes with a dashed line rather than a solid line. Please
label the lot numbers on the site plan. Please label all lines on the single family lots.
There are a lot of lines that are confusing because they are of the some line width and
not labeled. Please clarify.
25. There area few units in building TH 6 that are beyond 350 feet from a street
sidewalk.. Those units do not comply with 3.5.2(C)(1) of the LUC.
26. The proposed colors (winestone and green) of the vinyl shutters do not seem to be
complying with section 3.5.1(6) of the LUC. Please tone down the colors. Earthtones
would be more compatible.
27. Please make reference to the modification that was granted to allow 150 dwelling units
on the multifamily portion of the site plan in the Land Use Statistics chart.
28. Add windows on the end elevations as shown on the Current Planning redlines. Section
3.5.1(9(3)(c) requires that windows be placed to visually establish and define the
building stories and establish human scale and proportion. The addition of these end
windows would allow this standard to be satisfied.
29. We highly recommend the addition of porches to the units. Both architecturally and
functionally, the project will look and function better with porches.
Please return all drawings and reports redlined by City staff with submission of
your revisions that are clearly dated and labeled as revised plans. Please schedule
your resubmittal with Ginger Dodge and/or Voneen Macklin of the Current Planning
Department at 970.221.6750.
Please contact me at 970.221.6750 and/or e-mail: tiones@ci.fort-collins.co.us if you
should have any questions or concerns related to these comments.
Sincerely,
Troy Jone
City PI ner
5
11. It's not clear how the Townhouse with Garage on the site plan corresponds to the
elevations of the some building type. Which one of the lines represents the front
fa§ade on the site plan. Are there concrete patios along the front facades? Please
clarify. An enlargement of the site plan and landscape plan for,a typical example of
each unit type would be very helpful. Please be specific about what surface is, and what
each line represents.
12. Street tree locations are meeting the required 30 to 40 foot spacing as shown, but keep
in mind that when you start to work out utility locations and driveway cuts for the single
family lots, those trees will still need to satisfy the 30 to 40 foot spacing requirements.
Our experience has been that with lots 55 feet and narrower in width have difficulty
coordinating trees and utilities. We need to have a utility coordination meeting that
also includes Current Planning in order to work this out. Have you thought about where
you are putting driveways on the single family lots, and how they affect the tree and
utility placements?
13. Please be more specific about the location and species of the shrubs where they are
depicted as a hatched area on the site plan.
14. Please show the limits of the area you intend to count toward your one acre park, and
label it as "small neighborhood park" on the site and landscape plans. .
15. The parking lots that extend northeast and southeast from the Sugar Maple Lane cul-
de-sac need additional buffering at their ends to block the view from adjacent
properties. See section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the LUC for specific design requirements of
this buffering.
16. A partial redesign is necessary for the area where private drive extends from
Bellflower Drive to the Sugar Maple Lane intersection with Lupine Drive. This alignment
would encourage cut -through traffic to use the private drive. A solution may be to close
off the Lupine Drive access to this private drive and convert building THG 20 to be the
variety without garages. Another solution may be to convert building THG 21 to be the
variety without garages, and let that triangular area connect to make a yard area in
front of building 21. Feel free to come in and we can brainstorm together about
possible solutions for this problem. We may want to involve Mark McCallum in this
discussion.
17. Please note the Advance Planning comment about making the triangular turf area lined
with trees around the edges rather having the trees out in the middle.
18. The majority of the proposed trash enclosures are not adequately screened in
accordance with section 3.2.1(E)(6). Ensure that shrubs are placed adjacent to all sides
of such enclosures except where there is an opening for access.
19. Take the work "preliminary" off the site and landscape plans.
20. It needs to be specified on the site plan the exact number of units having 2 bedrooms
and the exact number of units having 3 bedrooms. The required number of off-street
parking spaces is based on the number of bedrooms, and we cannot determine how many
spaces are required [as per 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)] until we know the total number of units for
each bedroom count.
21. Please consider another tot lot next to the pool and clubhouse in the yard area to the
northwest.
22. You have proposed 12 handicap spaces. You are welcome to provide more than required,
but you only need to provide 7. Some apartment projects that have provided more than
4
clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public, and what reasonable steps have
been undertaken to minimize any potential harm resulting from noncompliance. If and
when you have shown that you have complied with the first sentence of 3.5.2(C)(1) to
the extent reasonably feasible, then you may use the second sentence which allows for
the 200 and 350 foot distances between the front fogade and the street sidewalk. In
no way are the 200 and 350 foot allowable distancing separations meant to be construed
as something to assist in emergency access. The emergency services have made it clear
that they prefer front doors to face and open directly onto the street from which a
dwelling unit is addressed. The 200 and 350 foot distancing separations are meant to
provide flexibility in site layouts when it is not feasible to have the units face the
street, but only when such a site plan can satisfy the emergency accessing issues. So, in
a nut shell, even if a site plan satisfies 3.5.2(C)(1), that site plan must also have the
emergency accessing and addressing issues resolved.
7. The big issue with addressing for emergency services such as fire protection, police
protection, or ambulance services is that they need to find each address easily, quickly
and without confusion. The Paudre Fire Authority has problems with buildings that are
addressed off of a street but are not near the street off of which it is addressed.
This adds to confusion in an emergency situation. You will need to set up a meeting with
the Poudre Fire Authority, Current Planning, Engineering, and Advance Planning to
discuss the addressing issues that are caused by the proposed configuration of buildings
and their relationship to streets. As of now this is an unresolved issue that needs to be
resolved by the applicant. .
8.. Note that Public Service has problems with the proposed setbacks for buildings 12, 6, 7,
18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, and 26. A utility coordination is necessary and should be
coordinated through Mark McCallum. The following departments and agencies should be
invited: Quest, AT&T Cable, Public Service, the Water/Wastewater Department, the
Stormwater Department, the Current Planning Department, the Engineering
Department, and Light & Power.
9. It seems that there are too many CAD layers turned on for the site plan. It is rather
confusing. Many lines in lots and around buildings are not labeled. On the site plan
please label building envelopes (or clarify line type in a legend) that you have drawn and
please use a dotted or dashed line rather than a solid line. The solid line for the.
building envelopes is particularly confusing for the multifamily buildings on the site plan.
10, The design detail of Bellflower and Silver Birch interacts with the future Vine Drive
needs to be worked out by you so that we can ensure that the streets are stubbed to
the right locations. We had also discussed with Drew Thomas from V.F. Ripley at one
point in the past that the ditch crossing that you propose on your site will need to be
supplemented by another ditch crossing on the property to the south. As part of the
Bellflower/Silver Birch/Future Vine off -site design, this ditch crossing also needs to be
accounted for. If it makes the most sense to locate this crossing right on your
southwestern property line, you may need to provide the design for the bridge and
escrow some of the money for the bridge. It may be a good idea for you to set up a
meeting with staff to discuss this issue. Current Planning, Advance Planning,
Transportation Planning, Traffic Operations, and Engineering should all be involved in
that discussion.
3
for 'visual interest and amenities." The third step according to said manual is to
identify all "destination areas" located within a quarter -mile of outside edges of the
project site. The "destination areas" that are applicable for this site include
"residential areas", and "commercial sites." The fourth step according to said manual is
to fill in the applicable boxes for each destination area in the Pedestrian LOS
worksheet (figure 6 on page 18 of said manual). The fifth step according to said manual
is to take a field measurement from the project site to each of the destination areas in
the worksheet. From this field measurement, the A/M Ratio can be determined. The
A/M Ratio is explained in the fold out chart named "Fort Collins Pedestrian Levels of
Service" within said manual. As proposed, the "directness" is at a Level of Service F, and
is unacceptable. Please see the attached redlined pages from the TIS.
2. The Pedestrian LOS worksheet in Appendix F of the TIS is filled out incorrectly. The
Project Location Classification is "school walking area." There is not only "residential" as
a destination, but also "commercial sites." Without providing a trail to the commercial
area at the corner of Lemay and Connifer, the required L05 standards cannot be met.
See redlined TIS page.
3. Section 3.2.2(C) gives the City of Fort Collins the authority to require the off -site
pedestrian and bicycle improvements to connect the site with the nearby. convenience
shopping center.
4. The Park Planning department is requiring a 20 foot wide trail easement to be provided
adjacent to the ditch through this entire site. We routed a set of the plans to the Lake
Canal Ditch Company, but haven't heard back yet. In talking to Craig Forman of the Park
Planning Department, he indicated that it seems strange that you have put the sidewalk
along the ditch right on top of the ditch road. He's pretty sure the ditch company will
not allow that. He also make it clear that the 20 foot trail easement needs to start at
the edge of the ditch easement rather than the top of the bank of the ditch. There
was a time when it looked like the Lake Canal may abandon or sell of this portion of the
ditch, but it is my understanding that that scenario is no longer very likely. You will
need to set up a meeting with Current Planning, Park Planning, the Lake Canal Ditch
Company, and Advance Planning to discuss the treatment of this trail easement with the
placement of the buildings facing the ditch. As of now this is an unresolved issue that
needs to be resolved by the applicant.
5. Unless you extend the street and street sidewalk of Lupine Drive to where the trail
crosses it, the units in buildings 20 and 21 do not satisfy the provisions of 3.5.2(C)(1)
where it states that every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall
face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than 200 feet from a street
sidewalk.
6. The first sentence in LUC 3.5.2(C)(1) says. "Every front facade with a primary entrance
to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible." The
term "extent reasonably feasible" is defined in Article 5 of the LUC as "under the
circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation,
that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or
would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been
undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from
noncompliance with the regulation." You must provide written justification explaining
what efforts were taken to comply with the regulation and how the costs of compliance
2
Com u / Planning and Environmental
Cu rr nt Planning
vices
City of Fort Collins
"
March 6, 2001
Rachael Lindner
VF Ripley and Associate
401 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2604
Staff has reviewed your submittal for Redwood Apartments P.D.P., and we offer
the following comments:
COMMENTS:
A. Water/Wastewater Department, Engineering Department, and Stormwater
Utility Department, Technical Services (formerly Mapping & Drafting),
Zoning, Poudre Fire Authority, Natural Resources, Transportation
Planning, Park Planning, AT&T, Water Conservation, Streets, Light.
and Power, Police, Building Inspection, Forestry, Public Service, Post
Office, Transfort, Traffic Operations, Advance Planning:
a. Please seethe attached comment sheets and/or redlines from these
departments.
B. Current Planning:
1. The minimum required pedestrian Level of Service cannot be achieved without a trail
connection from this site to the convenience store at the corner of Lemay and Conifer.
Without meeting the minimum Level of Service requirements, the site does not have
adequate public facilities, and is therefore not developable. Page 4 of the City of Fort
Collins Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual states that the purpose of
the Level of Service Standards is to provide a definition of "adequate" - for each mode
of travel. The process for calculating the pedestrian Level of Service is specified -.
starting on page 16 of the City of Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual.
As explained in said manual, the first step in determining the minimum pedestrian LOS is
to determine the type of "location area' that the site is located in. By definition, this
site is located in what is called a "school walking area." The second step according to
said manual is to determine the applicable minimum LOS standards that apply to the
project using Figure 5 on page 17 of said manual. In this case, the required minimum
LOS is "B" for "directness", "continuity", "street crossings", and "security", and is "C"
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020