Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAMADA LIMITED SUITES PUD -- PRELIMINARY - 16-96A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -urban design, inc. 5. Other note changes, land use breakdown changes, revised point charts and planning objectives, have been made as requested. Sincerely, Eldon Ward, president Cityscape Urban Design, In�!- cc: Roger Swahn, The Swahn Group, Inc. Anthony Benham, Tharaldson Development Co. George Holter, Holter Realty Jack Blake, Stewart & Associates July 22, 1996 Michael Ludwig Project Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Michael; Co yp@pg� urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 FAX (970) 226-4196 Attached is the resubmittal of the Ramada Suites PUD, Preliminary and Phase I Final, revised in response to City Staff Comments. Specific responses include: We have increased the width of all sidewalks, outside of South Mason Street, to a minimum of 5'. South Mason Street remains at 4' per the street standards in place at the time this project was originally submitted. 2. We have changed some of the landscaping as requested by advance planning. However, we have not added the plazas to the north and the south of the hotel building as requested. While we understand the desire to add trees to this space, placing them in tree wells where they may not thrive, and adding more paving is not desirable. We would rather reduce the visual scale of the buildings with hedges and green space. 3. As stated before, we do not feel a pedestrian connection to the north around the wetlands to Mason Street is necessary. This connection adds more paving to the site, reduces green space, and deemphasizes the primary pedestrian connection that is being provided. The additional sidewalk would add little if any convenience to pedestrians. 4. We also do not feel that rotating the retail/office building 90 degrees would be beneficial to the project. In order for the cross access and shared parking to work, the building would have to be pushed against the southern property line of lot 4, with its back against the existing retail building. This would then cause pedestrians travelling between the retail/office and hotel to cross even more drive/parking than the current plan does. In addition, this plan would alienate the existing retail building to the south. While the existing retail building is not part of this PUD, it has common ownership, and has established a pattern of setbacks and other "character" elements that should be respected.