HomeMy WebLinkAboutLINCOLN PARK (FORMERLY LINCOLN MIXED-USE PDP), 1110 E. LINCOLN - PDP - 40-94G - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (4)General #127 and #128
As you mentioned, with regard to our removal of the Lemay access however replacement of
same with emergency and pedestrian access, the City on reconsideration agrees we are in
compliance with the LUC connectivity provisions because:
LUC Section 3.6.3 (F) speaks to the question of "Street connections to and from adjacent
developments and developable parcels."
The language that "All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub -arterial streets
stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previous -approved development plans or
existing development" is clear about what it explicitly says. In addition, however, I think
implicit in this language, is the idea that previously developed property anticipated the overall
neighborhood street system and accordingly stubbed one or more streets up to its boundaries.
These stubbed in streets were part of the development's compliance with connectivity and street
system requirements, notwithstanding the fact that the actual street construction and connectivity
would not occur until the ultimate condition, that is when the adjacent parcel was developed.
Of course the two points of access requirement for fire and emergency vehicles certainly has to
be met during interim periods of time, and is being met with a temporary emergency access road
to Lemay with an all-weather surface and restricted access. Also pedestrian access to Lemay is
being provided both in the interim and final.
Transportation Planning/Construction Plans #123
The way I interpret it as best I can is:
In the interim condition we will install 4-foot sidewalks along Lemay and Lincoln.
At that time (installation of interim sidewalks) we will not have pay for sidewalks as part of our
local street obligation (Lemay and Lincoln). Therefore there will be no street oversizing
reimbursement for the sidewalks.
We will however not be obligated to install sidewalks twice, once for the interim (which will
probably be a long time — and the design of the ultimate may possibly change before it is built).
The Development Agreement should reflect this.
Thank yo
Jon Wouty
JP/kl v
3944 JFK Parkway, 12E, Fort Collins, CO 80525 • (970) 226-5000 • Fax (970) 226-5125
February 12, 2007
Cameron Gloss
City of Fort Collins
Planning Department
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Response to July 31, 2006, Comments
Dear Cameron:
With regard to the above reference comments, we have answered all questions and satisfied all
requests, except for the following ones which we have explanatory remarks and/or questions:
General #54, Landscape Plan #10 and #122
The existing trees along Lemay will be pruned and thinned, but maintained until such time as the
relocated Vine requires their removal. These trees shall be removed by the City and at their
expense.
We have specified deciduous trees in the interim condition because a) deciduous shade trees look
much better and are more appropriate for street trees (and are accordingly required in the code as
street trees) and b) we anticipate that these trees will be in place for many years and therefore it
is more appropriate for both the aesthesis of the project and the aesthesis of the streets from the
project's standpoint and the public's to plant deciduous shade trees.
We are agreeable to commit to moving these trees at our expense for up to four years from the
time they are planted, because moving them would be reasonably possibly, however we are
opposed to being obligated to plant street trees two times, once in the interim condition (which
will probably be a long time — and the design of the ultimate may possibly change before it is
built) and a second time at ultimate.
The Development Agreement should reflect the foregoing.
3944 JFK Parkway, 12E, Fort Collins, CO 80525 • (970) 226-5000 • Fax (970) 226-5125