HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE PUD, 2ND FILING - PRELIMINARY - 32-95D - CORRESPONDENCE -STORMWATER
DEC 2 41997
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET.:.
DATE: December 23, 1997 TO: Stormwater
PROJECT: #32-95D Registry Ridge P.U.D., 2nd Filing -
(LDGS) Preliminary
All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, January 14,1998
There needs to be more documentation showing that this filing is in compliance with the overall drainage
plan for the Registry Ridge development. Please discuss and document what parameters were used in the
SWMM model and compare with proposed conditions on this site.
Please address the issue of the sequencing of improvements on this site compared to the First Filing
improvements. From a storm drainage perspective this site cannot be developed until all downstream
improvements shown on the First Filing plans are built and certified.
Please address all off -site flows entering this site. Document where these flows have been calculated;
ensure that they correspond to First Filing plans and assumptions.
In general these plans need to coordinate more with the First Filing plans and cannot be approved until
outstanding issues associated with the First Filing plans are resolved.
Date: �4Y 7 Signature:?�`f&Of7)
CHECK HERE 1F YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
PW Ske Offer
_Pak ie Y — Cc : Vt. kc L. o'a t 4
City of Fort Collins
Comments continued from the previous page...
• Please modify the Attorney's Certificate as shown on the attached sheet.
Sheet 2 of 2: Final Plat
• Provide either a match line or make sure that the site is on one page instead of
splitting it up.
• Label the adjoining properties.
• Show ROW dimensions on all of the public streets.
• Need to show 2 ties to the section corners.
• If the portion of the project south of Bon Homme Richard Drive is not a part of
the 2nd Filing, please eliminate it from the plat.
Sheet 1 of 3: Preliminary Overall Utility Plan
• Show the other side of Bon Homme Richard Drive with all of the accesses.
• You need to provide handicap access ramps at all of the pedestrian crossings.
• The handicap access ramps and pedestrian crossings around the traffic circle
need to be out of the travel lanes.
• If this filing is constructed before the 1st Filing, the following improvements will
need to be completed:
1. Bon Homme Richard Drive along the property frontage
2. Nimitz Drive along the property frontage
3. Truxtun Drive along the property frontage
4. Shields Street north to Fossil Creek Drive.
• Offsite requirements needed if this filing is constructed before the 1 st Filing:
1. ROW needs to be acquired
2. Offsite easements for grading, utilities, drainage, etc.
• I'm concerned with the design of the gas station. It appears that the entrance is
too small for a semi -truck to get in and out effectively. Please provide more
information and prove that this will work.
• See sheet number 1 of 3 for additional comments and concerns.
REVISION
��Yyy4
#Nv
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: December 23, 1997 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #32-95D Registry Ridge P.U.D., 2nd Filing -
(LDGS) Preliminary
All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, January 14,1998
REGISTRY RIDGE PUD - GENERAL COMMENTS:
Sheet 1 of 2: Final Plat
• Provide either a match line or make sure that the site is on one page instead of
splitting it up.
• Label the adjoining properties.
• Show ROW dimensions on all of the public streets.
• Need to show 2 ties to the section corners.
• The access at the north end of the property needs to be contained within an
access easement. Part of the easement will be offsite, therefore we will need to
see the appropriate documents prior to receiving final approval.
• Show all necessary offsite easements and ROW dedications and provide the
proper documentation prior to final approval.
Comments are continued on the next page w
Date: 1115498 Signature:
CM HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
✓Ply ✓ Srte _ Dram p Report ✓ Ok asPoiss ro
Utiik ✓Re& Uffq ✓ aDwa45
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: December 23, 1997 TO: Trans Ping
PROJECT: #32-95D Registry Ridge P.U.D., 2nd Filing -
(LDGS) Preliminary
All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, January 14,1998
(z,x-L ruu(es oA, 7'("" to,)
✓ {% �-�,��. ��c�z ingectk C9Jwv�.c,(�1c�
..p e� ci- ti� c ue
L +
-# o
MA- V'A�&(,� w,�-�
�I
� Dante: I � � � Simature: r"—aq U9"�
CIIP,CK HERE IF YOU 0 RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_ Ply vie _ Report _ Ofhw
_ Uo _ Redme Utility L City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
June 17, 1997
Page 5
creation of mixed use neighborhoods where residents have business
services available in the close vicinity. Both the former Goals
and Objectives and the Land Use Policies Plan, in addition to the
newly adopted City Plan Principles and Policies, emphasize the
desirability of having neighborhoods which include support services
which meet some of the needs of daily life. More specifically,
both the City Structure Plan and the Zoning Map adopted in March of
this year designate the Registry Ridge Second Filing site as a Low
Density, Mixed -Use Neighborhood. Although the Second Filing is not
being processed under City Plan requirements, it should be noted
that the mixed use nature of the project would meet a stated
purpose of its Low Density, Mixed -Use Neighborhood zoning, which is
to combine housing with "complementary and supporting land uses
that serve a neighborhood"..
In addition to satisfying City policy goals, Dalco believes
that is makes good planning sense to provide neighborhood services
within the neighborhood so that residents have convenient and
efficient access to them. By having such services available,
vehicle miles travelled are reduced, benefitting both the Registry
Ridge residents and the entire community.
CONCLUSION
The reality is that this is one of the last pieces of a large
project, approved under a different land use scheme. It makes
sense to complete the development in accordance with that scenario,
if the City's goals of diverse housing, minimum density and the
provision of services to neighborhoods are to be met.
For all of the reasons cited above, Dalco requests that the
Planning and Zoning Board grant variances from the minimum point
requirements of the Residential Uses Density Chart H and the
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Point Chart J on the basis
that the plan proposed for Registry Ridge Second Filing is equal to
or better than a plan in compliance with the criterion, pursuant to
§29-526 (K) (3) Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
LLubIa A. Lley iJ
LAL/jPk
PC: Jim McCory
Linda Ripley
Planning and Zoning Board
June 17, 1997
Page 4
Further justifying the approval of the variance from Density
Chart H is the fact that there are several features close to the
development that make the location ideal for medium density and
multi -family housing. The Second Filing is located within 3500
feet of a dedicated City neighborhood park site in the Registry.
Ridge First Phase Preliminary. Also in close. proximity is a
reserved school site and a daycare site. Although neither of these
factors qualify for points under the revised point chart that is
applicable to the Second Filing, both indicate that this location
is appropriate for `residential evelopme t.
M��►-�►r.,�1
Finally, in keeping with the ended O.D.P. the agreement
with the neighborhood, Dalco is preserving Parcel N of the Amended
O.D.P. as permanent open space by selling it to the City's Natural
Resources Department . The sale was a significant ,goal of the
agreement with the neighborhood, and complies with the Amended
O.D.P., The Plan for the Region between Fort Collins and Loveland
and the City's Structure Plan.
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Point Chart J. The
neighborhood convenience shopping center in the Second Filing earns
30 points, or 480-o of the maximum applicable points on Point Chart
J. Points were earned for being located at the intersection of an
arterial and collector street with primary access taken off the
collector; containing two or more different uses; being located on
at least three gross acres of land; and being located at least 3/4
mile from another shopping center.
This project was not permitted to take points for Criterion f.
Since Dalco is creating a new neighborhood convenience shopping
center in order to provide necessary services to the residential
portions of Registry Ridge, it cannot meet the strict technical
interpretation of the language of Criterion f., which requires the
center to be "continguous to and functionally part of an existing
or approved neighborhood shopping center".
Points were also not awarded under Criterion g. for
contiguity. Although the center does'not have at least one -sixth
(1/6) of its boundary continguous to existing development as
defined by the L.D.G.S. because the adjacent property is either
county development or dedicated open space, it is interesting to
note that the center would have contiguity under the definitions in
the City Plan Land Use Code which was, adopted March 28, 1997.
Had 10 additional points been awarded to the center under
either Criterion f. or Criterion g., the Second Filing center would
have achieved a total of 40 points, or 650, satisfying the minimum
requirement of Point Chart J.
Further supporting this request for a variance from Point
Chart J, is the City's long-standing policy goal of promoting the
Planning and Zoning Board
June 17, 1997 MN!lC opt
Page 3
-5
Furthermore, as part of the settlement with t e neighborhood,
aC
the commercial/office portion of the Second Filin has been reduced
in size from 9.5 acres on the original O.D.P. to tmwevR!r with the
Amended O.D.P. approved by the Board in March. Had this portion of
the O.D.P. been submitted with the First Phase Preliminary in 1995,
it would have been evaluated under the Business Service Uses
category (Point Chart E) and achieved sufficient points for
approval. Because of the reduction of its size, however, this
portion of the Amended O.D.P. can now only be evaluated as a
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center. The center fails to
comply with the City's strict technical interpretation of two key
criteria, therefore failing to achieve a sufficient number of
points.
JUSTIFICATION
The key justification for granting the variance requests and
approving the Second Filing as proposed is that this plan presents
the only opportunity for the City to guarantee that a minimum of 3
dwelling units per acre will be achieved on the overall development
and to complete the Registry Ridge development as contemplated by
the Amended O.D.P., i.e., to provide the higher density residential
and commercial/office components of this mixed use project.,s
Pa�S O
Residential Uses Density Chart H.i Asn mittedt
, t e Second rflax�M
Filing proposes 74 6ip"awanrl apartment units at 6.06 dwelling •
units per acre
� in order to meet the overall minimum density requirement for���<
the entire Registry Ridge P.U.D. of 3 dwelling units per acre -as
approved on the Amended O.D.P. This is the plan envisioned and''+='
approved by the City and the neighborhood and affirmed by the
Planning and Zoning Board when the Amended O.D.P. was approved on
March 24, 1997.
If the Second Filing were to be developed under City Plan, the
LMN zoning district would require a minimum of 5 and a maximum of
8 dwelling units per net acre of residential land. A single-family
residential project at the lower end of this density range would be
a simple and profitable option for a developer in the Fort Collins
market, however, it is questionable whether even the maximum
density under the new zoning would allow the overall development to
comply with the Amended O.D.P. or meet the density requirements
under which it was approved. The development as proposed, with
this request for variance from the requirements of the revised
point chart, is the only way for the City to ensure that the Second
Filing develops as approved by the City and as contemplated by all
the parties - a true mixed use development meeting the City's
overall minimum density requirements for the entire development,
and providing a variety of housing types and neighborhood services
to the residents.
Planning and Zoning Board
June 17, 1997
Page 2
neighborhood then filed. suit against the City and Dalco in the
Larimer County District Court, preventing Dalco from obtaining
final approval of. the First Phase Preliminary and halting
submittals for the remaining phases for over a year. During the
pendency of the lawsuit, Dalco successfully negotiated a settlement
with the neighborhood which required that the O.D.P., while
preserving a minimum density of 3 dwelling units per acre, be
amended to shift density away from the neighborhood, reduce the
size of the commercial parcel, and preserve additional open space.
On March 24, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the
Amended O.D.P. and a Final Plan for the First Filing, which
included single family residential on 87 acres of the First Phase
Preliminary. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed.
With the legal impediments out of the way, Dalco has submitted
the Second Filing Preliminary, the last phase of the project
without an approved preliminary plan approval and the subject of
this variance request. The Second Filing Preliminary was designed
to be consistent with the terms of the neighborhood agreement and
to conform to the approved Amended O.D.P. It includes Parcel C
(approved for commercial/office) , Pi�g rsr�7 n'-p --- a'
�.nsit�• ro�;ae^���'� and Parcel G (approved for multi -family
residential) of the Amended O.D.P. (Dalco is also preparing to
submit the Third Filing Final encompassing the balance of the
single family residential in the First Phase Preliminary)
The�nn ae�� multi -family portions of they Second
Filing AIA subject to Density Chart H for Residential Uses, a
completely different version of the chart than that in effect when
the First Phase Preliminary was submitted and approved in 1995.
While this project was on hold for 16 months because of an appeal,
lawsuit, extended negotiation with the neighborhood and the
amendment of the O.D.P., the Density Chart for Residential Uses
underwent a series of significant modifications to implement
interim '"phasing criteria" including the tightening of locational
criteria and establishment of a minimum base of first 30, then 40
points. Ultimately, the City Council adopted a moratorium in
January, 1997 which permitted only limited application of the
existing point system prior to its complete repeal with the
adoption of City Plan in March, 1997.
When the phasing for Registry Ridge was planned in 1995,
residential development was permitted to achieve its points in a
variety of ways. Had the medium density residential and multi-
family portions of the O.D.P., now part of the Second Filing, been
submitted as a part of the First Phase Preliminary, they clearly
would have achieved sufficient points for approval. Now, however,
after significant legal delays and implementation of interim
"phasing criteria", the Second Filing cannot meet the minimum point
requirements on the new residential point chart.
MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
ARTHUR E. MARCH, JR. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
RAMSEY D. MYATT
110 EAST OAK STREET
ROBERT W. BRANDES, JR.
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524-2880
RICHARD S. GAST
(970) 482-4322
LUCIA A. LILEY
TELECOPIER (970) 482-3038
J. BRADFORD MARCH
LINDA S. MILLER
JEFFREY J. JOHNSON
MATTHEW J. DOUGLAS
June 17, 1997
Planning and Zoning Board
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
ARTHUR E. MARCH
1908-1981
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 469
FORT COLLINS, CO 80522-0469
Re: Registry Ridge P.U.D., Second Filing, Preliminary, #32-95
Request for L.D.G.S. Point Chart Variances
Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members:
The owner of the Registry Ridge P.U.D., Dalco Land Limited
Liability Company ("Dalcoll), requests a variance from the minimum
point. requirements of the Residential Uses Density Chart H and the
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping Center Point Chart J.
As grounds for this request, Dalco asserts that granting the
variances would neither be detrimental to the public good nor
impair the intent and purposes of the L.D.G.S. and, that the plan
submitted for Registry Ridge P.U.D., Second Filing is equal to or
better than a plan which would meet the criterion pursuant to §29-
526 (K) (3) . The Second Filing is being processed under the L.D.G.S.
pursuant to Section 6, Ordinance No. 161, 1996 (the "Transition
Ordinance"). Dalco offers the following evidence in support of its
variance requests:
BACKGROUND
The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan (the 110.D.P.11) was
approved by this Board on December 11, 1995. The O.D.P. provided
for a mix of uses including single-family residential, patio
homes/townhomes, multi -family residential, a day care, recreation
center, school site, neighborhood park, commercial area and open
space on a total of 244.4 acres with an overall density of slightly
over 3 dwelling units per acre. Also approved on December 11,
1995, was the Preliminary Plan for the First Phase of Registry
Ridge ("First Phase Preliminary") which included all of the single-
family residential on 196.05 acres.
Both decisions were appealed by representatives of an adjacent
neighborhood, but upheld by the City Council on March 5, 1996. The
JAN-13 98 10:53 FROM:AUX SVCS TSD 970-669-7499 TO:4162020 PAGE:03
Development Proposal Impact on Current School Enrollment
Development Name: REGISTRY RIDGE (2ND FILING-1/13196)
i'OOOPOO
��X
������♦
:ir rrr rri
rrr rr r_r.
rrrrrrr
(•rrrrrrr
r rrrl
Trrrri
rr
��r�rir rr.
rrrr�.��r
rr
ram— rrrr
•rrrrrrr
i�
I�,
a
I
M1
r
I
N
n
h'.
H
A
ESE=379
I
CSE=359
'•N
ESE=966
CSE=956
n
I
a
A
P1
r-
nd
ESE=t669
�
a
CSE=1676
Board of Education Policy regarding current Planning Standards are:
Ideal elementary school capacity is 550 students (based on a 4 round school - 4 classrooms per grade)
Ideal middle school capacity is 900 students
Ideal high school capacity is 1500 students
Definitions:
Design Capacity ........... 75% to 100% of building Is being used as designed
Extended Utilization The enrollment range that can be accommodated at a site by adding modulars
Over Capacity................The enrollment range that can be accommodated at a site only by changing daily
schedules or the yearly calendar
Student Yield...............Our historical average student yield from new developments which is:
.27 elementary, .IS.middle school; and .17 high school students per dwelling unit
CSE (current student enrollment) ........... based on 1998 October Count (funded) enrollment figures
ESE (estimated student enrollment) ...... current enrollment PLUS additional students from this nrnia.-t
Thid i9iave o pmant.lnVglYea 74'^d I A 'I .ru. ;. •.:; . ;,.::.: : ,,, .:. ,';: ;.:
Mr a,.. 6! 4ns:w►th tUQti lEyleld {;`` ` eta enta st iIa
11'ttlldd�ast hodl-students, 8
r.l y i . I •} y ...'n .: yJ•• • r °,�}i. �t 13 gh ,.,�I�oQly�Y4eritalr .
Thompson R2-J School District -- Planning, Property and Project Services — November 1, 1996
N
Fn
JAN-13 98 10:53 FROM:AUX SVCS TSD . 970-669-7499 TO:4162020
PAGE:02
DISTRICT GENERAL INFORMATION
School attendance area boundaries are subject to annual review by the Board
of Education. They may be changed to reflect changing demographics of an area or
educational philosophy decisions which may Mer the use of the school building,
• The capacity of any school is a variable figure based upon district -wide and/or
building level decisions such as: program offered; use of mobile classrooms; class
size; year-round schools or split sessions.
• Historically, the Thompson School District has shown an average rate of growth
of 2.3% annually, While there may be year-to-year variances from this figure, it is the
best indicator of potential district growth over the next ten years.
EXPLANATION OF IMPACT FIGURES ON REVERSE 610E
2. Current Year Enrollment is the standard fall count reported to the state.
Projected enrollment figures will be used between June and October.
3. The District average student yield is based on all types of housing as
reported in the 1990 census. Actual numbers of students from a specific
development may vary, dependent upon the presence of multi -family
housing, empty -nester housing, or price ranges of single family homes.
4. Potential Student Yield is calculated as the Average Student Yield times
the number of dwelling units proposed for this development. The number
of students from a mature development of mixoSLtypes of housing can be
expected to approach the district -wide average.
5. The expected rate of development used by the District for planning
purposes, will be the number of units per year for a stated number of
years, based on phasing plans or rate of development estimated by the
developer, or, If none is stated by the developer, on a calculated rate of 5
years for developments under 50 units and 10 years for larger
developments.
6. Students may be transported within the stated walk limits If hazardous
walking conditions are deemed to axle.
POP M
PROJECT HAM: BTAFF CONTACT: M I ILE. tr Iy
tzr1 Un
O City of Loveland o Town of BertWd O Ladmer County Other
Proposed DoYelooment Data
Antioipeted number or dwelling units in development:,
Type of proposed housing: O Single Family O PatbTownhome O 2-4 Plex O Multi (5+)
P1io mnpe of sir4le femly dwellings pmposad- O $100K O $100K - $180K O A18DK
POTENTIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT
I ELEMENTARY I MIDDLE SCHOOL I HIGH SCHOOL
1. Current School Area Co}bnwood loft COMMA '(. (,. , s .
2. Current Year Fall Enrollment 3 51 (P
3. Average Student Yield for
Thompson School District .27 .15 .17
14. Potential Student Yield this I a I I 1 ( 3
rmvalenmant
S. Expected Annual Yield based I I I
on yrs. build -out -
6. Transp: a. Walk Distance 1.5 mi 2.5 mi 3.0 rni
b. This Development 1 AEP 1 S bias
SPECIFIC ISSUr;S CONCERNING T:Hlj I)EVELOPURNT;
tuck up unla be. c�� o� �'g4cX5 j �bn mm¢ «h d t�y. ..
ftp1a12
JAN-0 98 10:52 FROM:AUX SVCS TSD 970-669-7499 TO:4162020 PAGE:01
Planni , Property & Project Services
53S North Douglas Avenue
Loveland, Colorado 80537
oveland/Derthoud, Colorado
FAX COVER SHEET _
Date:
— -U
TO:
cow
Total Number of Pages Including Cover Sheet:
please call (970) 669-2170 if any problems occur during the fax transmission.
WMSAGB
(970) 669.2170
FAX (970) 669-7499
OAA-.f LI. eL/
YLL
d
s
�WAW M-
CONF1DEPMAL FACSIMME COMMUNICATION
-Me infomation contained in this facsimile transmission and the accompanying pages is intended solely for thi
add,eeaee(s) named above. If you are not an addressee, or responsible for delivering these docvmente to an addressee
you have received this document in error and you are strictly prohibited from reading or disclosing it. The infoematim
contalned in this document is highly confidential and may be sub)ed to legally enforceable privileges. Unless you at
addressee, or ossodated with an addressee for delivery purposes, you may violate these privileges and mbjac
yourself to liability U you do anything with this document or the information it contains other than calling v
Immediately at the number Listed above and returning this document to us at once.
As you are aware, the City is implementing a new development review process. Plan
revisions may now be submitted at any time. Planning and Zoning Board dates will
be assigned by City Staff when all issues have been addressed. Please contact me
for the number of folded revisions required for each document prior to the submittal
of plan revisions.
Please contact me at 221-6206 if you have any questions or concerns related to these
comments.
Sincerely,
Michael Ludwig, AICP
City Planner
xc: Tim Blandford
Stormwater Utility
file/Project Planner
POINT CHARTS:
g. The commercial component (Parcel C) achieves 48% (30 out of 62) of the
maximum applicable points on Point Chart J of the LDGS, failing to achieve
the minimum required 65%. The residential component achieves 15 or 16
of the maximum applicable points on Point Chart H of the LDGS, failing to
achieve the minimum required 60%. Staff has reviewed the June 17, 1997
variance request and, with minor modifications as noted on the attached
copy, will recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board approval of
variances to both point charts.
h. Related to Point Chart H, the applicant has designated 17,080 square feet
on the Site Plan as active recreational space. It appears that portions of this
area do not comply with the LDGS definition of active recreation space. The
area must be no less than 50 feet in any dimension and cannot include areas
within building envelopes. Please revise this area and the square
footage calculations on the Site Plan.
PLAN SET:
i. Please refer to the above stated comments for revisions to the Site Plan and
Landscape Plan. Staff requests a meeting with the applicant to discuss
potential design alternatives.
j. The bulding elevations for the convenience store appear to include an
attached car wash and do not match the layout shown on the Site Plan
13. A redlined set of the Site Plan / Landscape Plan / Building Elevations and
comments from the Transportation Planning Department are attached. Please
return all redlined documents to Mike Ludwig in Current Planning with plan
revisions.
14. A redlined set of utility plans and comments from the Engineering Department are
attached. Please return all redlined documents to Mike Ludwig in Current Planning
with plan revisions.
15. Comments from the Stormwater Utility are attached.
This concludes the Staff comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming
as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request.
revise the product types on the LDGS application such that all buildings
contain a minimum of 3 dwelling units each (74 units total) or abandon the
remaining portions of the CDP and submit development applications which
comply with the Land Use Code. Staff regrets that this issue was not
identified during previous review(s).
ALL -DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA:
b. Based upon comment "a", the applicant's request for a variance to All -
Development Criteria A-1.1 "Solar Orientation"(requiring 65% of the single-
family and two-family lots to conform to the definition of a "solar oriented lot")
is no longer needed as A-1.1 does not apply to multi -family development.
C. Regardless of the new information provided in comment "a", a fundamental
redesign of the PUD application appears to be necessary. First, the 8-plex
buildings do not provide adequate relationship to each other; to the
surrounding network of private drives and parking; to the proposed duplex
units; or to the commercial component of the development. Second, the
duplexes appeared to be crammed into a minimal amount of space. Third,
the commercial acreage may need to increase in order to accommodate the
proposed intensity which further reduces the amount of residential acreage
and intensifies the concerns expressed regarding the residential areas. The
convenience store needs to have a reverse layout with the canopy interior to
the site and without a car -wash drive thru lane wrapping behind the building.
Based upon these concerns, Staff continues to question whether or not the
proposed design satisfies All -Development Criteria A-2.2, A-2.4, A-2.5, and
A-2.6.
d. The proposed landscape plan is currently deficient. The backs of buildings
and drive aisles facing Shields Street must be screened. Landscaping is
needed at the ends of the garage buildings. Minimal to zero landscaping is
proposed between the parking and buildings A and B. Please refer to All -
Development Criteria A-2.13 "Landscape".
e. Please submit a lighting plan so that staff may determine whether All -
Development Criteria A-2.15 "Site Lighting" is being satisfied. This concern
is magnified as the site is across the street from the public natural area /open
space.
f. Please submit a Hazardous Material Impact Analysis for the C-store (gas
pumps) so that staff may determine whether All -Development Criteria A-2.18
"Hazardous Materials" is being satisfied.
L
8. The Advance Planning Department offers the following comments:
a. The gas station canopy is intrusive in this area where the City ends and the
plains meet the foothills. The canopy should be internal to the site and
hidden. In doing so, pedestrian connections should be designed to and from
the c-store carefully, so it doesn't get severed from the remaining retail uses.
b. The PUD appears to have a hodge-podge arrangement despite recent
improvements. The 8-plex buildings intervene between the day care and
convenience center. It appears to be a frequent source of extra car trip ends
and is inconvenient. If this is absolutely necessary, then a spine should
directly link these uses (day care and retail). The arterial link along Shields
Street is acknowledged, but a more comfortable front oriented internal
connection is also needed.
C. Given the magnitude of the above comments, Staff requests a meeting with
the applicant to discuss potential solutions.
9. The Mapping Department stated that they will need to review the Final Plat.
10. The Public Service Company stated that the proposed easements appear to be
adequate.
11. The Water Conservation Specialist offers the following comments:
a. The landscape plan shall include the total area (in square feet) for each
landscape category. Landscape categories are distinguished by their water
requirements and intended maintenance level. Examples of possible
categories include, but are not limited to, high water turfgrass, low water
turfgrass, low water planting beds, moderate water planting beds, and non -
plant areas (paved areas, etc.).
b. Mulches shall be used for planting beds. The mulch can be either organic
or inorganic, and shall be applied to a minimum depth of 3 inches. In order
to prevent large expanses of barren mulch, there shall be a minimum plant
cover of 50 percent within 5 years of planting. No definition of cover is
currently indicated for the planting beds.
12. The Current Planning Department offers the following comments:
a. The Registry Ridge Overall Development Plan designates Parcel "G" for
"multi -family" use. Residential development is classified as either single-
family, two-family or multi -family, with multi -family meaning "three or more
dwelling units per building". It appears that the duplex product type is
inconsistent with the approved ODP. ODP's may not be amended under the
provisions of Ordinance No. 161, 1996. Therefore, the applicant must either
C. The off -site sanitary sewer line design and installation needs to be
addressed. The impact of the storm drainage system and off site street
improvements to existing water line facilities needs to be addressed.
d. The review of the drawing set was not completed due to the lack of adequate
and appropriate information. The Districts will require another review.
You may contact Mr. Terry Farrill, Systems Engineer, at 226-3104 with any
questions regarding these comments.
5. The Natural Resources Department stated that the applicant will need to obtain
an air quality permit from the State of Colorado prior to construction to assure the
management of fugitive dust. They will need to contact the Larimer County
Department of Environmental Health at 498-6775 for further details.
6. The Zoning Department offers the following comments:
a. The handicap accessible parking spaces in parking areas for Buildings B, C
and E need to be moved to the end of the rows so that they may utilize the
ramps that are shown.
b. Evergreen trees/shrubs are needed to screen the trash enclosures. }
C. Is any parking lot lighting proposed for the residential and commercial
buildings? If so, please show the proposed locations on the plans. Please
add notes to the Site Plan regarding the height of poles and the use of down -
directional, sharp cut-off fixtures.
d. A five foot wide landscaped strip is needed along the shared lot line of the
future day care center.
e. Please label and dimension the building envelope for the gas canopy.
f. The building envelopes shouldn't be shown on the final plat. If they are
separate lots or not part of an easement, it is o.k. to leave the line, but don't
title them as building envelopes.
g. The property is located within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
Please show the proposed locations for any wall signage for the commercial
/ retail buildings.
h. The rear elevation of the c-store seems to show the car wash attached. The
site plan shows it detached. Please clarify this discrepancy.
7. The Light and Power Utility stated that, the locations of street trees needs to be
flexible to provide minimum clearances to streetlights (40 feet clearance for shade
trees, 20 feet for ornamental trees).
Code (1995 Model Energy Code with amendments), whichever applies to
each building.
d. Buildings 1-26 are shown on the plat as single-family dwellings on individual
lots. Section 504 of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code as
adopted by the City of Fort Collins requires that exterior walls of one- and
two-family dwellings located closer than 3 feet from a property line be of one -
hour fire -resistive construction. No openings are allowed in such exterior
walls. A parapet extending 30-inches above the roof surface is required
unless the structure complies with the exceptions to UBC Section 1710.
Projections, such as cornices, eave overhangs or exterior balconies shall not
extend over the property line and must comply with UBC Sections 1710 and
504. Though not administered at the municipal level, the requirements of
State and Federal civil rights legislation (Fair Housing Acts) may apply to the
project.
e. Buildings A-F are eight unit apartment buildings. Apartments accessible and
adaptable for use by persons with disabilities must be provided in
accordance with Uniform Building Code Section 3103(a)8 as amended by
the City of Fort Collins. The 1992 edition of the American National Standard
Institute publication #A117.1 "Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities"
should be used in the design of accessible/adaptable dwelling units. A local
amendment to the UBC requires that accessible units with numbers of
bedrooms and other amenities be provided in numbers proportionate to the
remainder of the project. When more stringent, the Colorado revised
Statute, Title 9, Article 5 Section 111 also applies to apartment projects.
Though not administered at the municipal level, similar requirements are
contained in State and Federal civil rights legislation (Fair Housing Acts.).
Where provided in a project containing accessible dwellings, a portion of
garages or covered parking must be accessible.
3. The Park Planning Department stated that both neighborhood and community
park land fees will be assessed on each dwelling unit.
4. The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation
District have reviewed the above mentioned project and offer the following
comments:
a. All facilities that are not located within the public ROW will require easements
on the District's standard easement form.
b. 'All issues identified on previous correspondence regarding the 1st and 2nd
Filing are to be addressed. Hydraulic master plans for the water and sanitary
sewer must be submitted and approved by the Districts.
Comm ty Planning and Environmental' xvices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
January 21, 1998
Linda Ripley
V-F Ripley Associates
1113 Stoney Hill Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Linda,
Staff has reviewed your documents for the Registry Ridge PUD, 2nd Filing, Preliminary
that were submitted on December 18, 1997, and would like to offer the following
comments:
1. Information sheets are attached from the Thompson R2-J School District. The
District requests information from the applicant regarding proposed phasing of the
Registry Ridge development. Please contact Diane Reusing at 669-2170 with this
information.
2. The Building Inspections Department offers the following comments:
a. The site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with
Uniform Building Code Section 3103 and UBC Appendix Section 3106.
Provide a continuous, unobstructed, designated and marked "accessible
route of travel' among all the buildings on the site and building exits and
entrances and the public way (public sidewalk). Accessible routes shall
comply with ANSI A117.1-1992 with running slopes not greater than 1:20
and cross slopes no steeper than 1:50. Where routes cross lanes for vehicle
traffic, they shall be designated and marked as a cross walk. Provide
parking and signs per Appendix Section 3107. Parking and access aisles
shall comply with ANSI Al 17.1-1992 with slopes no greater than 1:50 in any
direction. Each lot and phase must comply with the requirements for
accessible parking.
b. Buildings which exceed 5000 square feet in area must be equipped with an
automatic fire suppression system or be compartmentalized by fire resistive
construction as required by Section 3802, Uniform Building Code as
amended by the City of Fort Collins.
C. Buildings shall be designed to comply with the Fort Collins Nonresidential
Energy Code (ASHRAE 90.1 with local amendments) or Residential Energy
281 North College Avenue - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6750 - FAX (970) 416-2020