Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT PARK PUD - FINAL - 21-95A - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSRipley Associates Response to Staff Comments Prospect Park Final PUD Page3 10G. The note regarding coordination of the landscape plan has been added as requested. 11. Architectural enhancements have been added to the east facade of Building A. 12. Colors have been indicated on the building elevations. 13. A note describing the type of lighting and specifying the light fixture has been added to the site plan. 14. We understand Light and Power is available to help. 15. The note regarding trash enclosures matching the building material has been added as requested. 16. The applicant has been in contact with Peter Barnes to verify the project's signage allowance. 17. The maximum hours of operation for tenants within the center shall be from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. with the exception of the Payless Pharmacy drive -up window which will be open 24-hours. This commitment is noted on the site plan. 18. Bike parking spaces have been quantified and the bike rack note has been added to the site plan as requested. 19. Building envelope dimensions have been provided. 20. An outdoor play area has been indicated for Building E. 21. Northern Engineering has addressed utility plan comments. If you have any questions regarding the revisions or these comments, please call. Sincerely, RIPLEY ASSOCIATES P 7;J7 Linda Ripley cc: Tim Sittema, Sittema-Bullock Bud Curtis, Northern Engineering, Inc. Ripley Associates Response to Staff Comments Prospect Park Final PUD Paget III. We have kept the walk attached on the west side of Building D, because if we made it detached our street trees would need to be eliminated because they would be in conflict with a sewer line. 11. The sidewalk connection through Building D's drive -up is five feet wide. lJ. The crosswalk between Buildings C and D will be detailed the same as the crosswalk between Buildings A and B. (See IE) IK. An additional pedestrian connection has been added at the southeast corner of the site to better serve bikes and pedestrians traveling in both directions. 2. Landstar Surveying has addressed comments 2A-2F, 3, and 5 regarding the plat. 4. Trees shall not be planted closer than four feet to gas lines as noted on the landscape plan. 6. Northern Engineering has addressed engineering comments. 7. The applicant understands that Buildings A,B,C and E will require that no internal floor area exceed 5,000 square feet without fire containment separation walls, or be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system. 8. Two additional handicap parking spaces have been added to the site plan to serve Building E. 9. The applicant understands that each building will need to feature a handicap accessible route of travel. IOA. Additional plant material has been added to east side of Building A. Foundation plantings are not used because of the drainage swale in this area. We believe multi -trunk ornamental trees will be more visible from Shields Street than foundation plantings would be. IOB. We have added an additional planted island at the west end of the south elevation of Building A. IOC. Given that Building C will have back doors and future tenants will require access to a shared trash collection area, there is no room for foundation plantings in the back of Building C. We have provided several architectural enhancements in order to improve the visual appearance of this facade. IOD. A tree has been added as requested. 10E. ( See 1D) 10F. Landscape categories have been provided as requested. March 6, 1996 Mr. Ted Shepard Planning Department 281 North College Avenue RWLEY ASSOCIATES Fort Collins, CO 80524 Landscape Architecture Re: Response to staff comments: Urban Design Prospect Park, Final P.U.D. Planning Dear Ted: 223 Jefferson Street Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 We have reviewed staff comments dated February 9, 1996, and have the following PHONE (970) 224-5828 FAX (910) 224.2956 comments: IA. The applicant is willing to participate in constructing a pedestrian connection between Northwood, Stone Creek Apartments and the proposed development, provided that the owners of the other properties desire the connection and access issues can be resolved. 1B. Pedestrian access at the right-in/right-out curb cut on Prospect has been improved by detaching the sidewalks in the landscape islands. In addition, we have been able to add a pedestrian connection to the bus stop area adjacent to Shields Street. 1C. The above walk connections feature ramps and crosswalks. 1D. Additional shade trees have been added as requested. IE. The pedestrian crosswalk connecting the plaza areas in front of Buildings A and B would be difficult to elevate because stormwater flows go through this area. We are proposing to ramp the plazas down to meet the street grade and carry the concrete paving and score pattern across the drive aisle to prioritize the pedestrian. The scoring on the crosswalk will create a noticeable sound when vehicles drive over it. The intent is to make motorists aware that they are in a pedestrian area. IF. The applicant prefers to leave the outdoor plaza behind Building B as shown. We agree that this is an excellent location for outdoor dining and if the east side of this building is leased to a tenant that sells food, it is likely that the plaza would be enlarged. 1G. We believe a 10 foot radius where the pedestrian walk connects to the bike trail is appropriate. A 10 foot radius is easy to maneuver at low speeds and since the bicyclists are about to cross a street at this location we want them to slow down.