The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLIND PROPERTY - OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 39-94A - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (4)REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 28, 2001 TO: Advance Planning PROJECT: #34-94A Lind Property — Overall Development Plan (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: April 18, 2001 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** QtiIv) f �Ul �0�"� ��v�� _ X'-> ��o 1 ate` ri� �S �U"� �e;SN�jur o1=c� CHECK HERE IF YO��CEIVE COPIES OF R MIONS W tes Dade Drainage Report SignatufiESer Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape of I REVISION,, G qW, COMMENT SH`'NN,N DATE: March 28, 2001 �: Park Planning PROJECT: #34-94A Lind Property — Overall Development Plan (LUC) All comments must be receive -by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: April 18, 2001 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** ,P 4r4IC Sl% Lev/[ yD��% /1/ee4i la leg irf ae.I> i.ztPru e�l„�S arsA-�uu fxr i7ee,6 A4 QI44 /CCdirc4 CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Daft k Site Drainage Report Signatuf�er � Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Citv of Fort Collins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 28, 2001 TO: Traffic Ops PROJECT: #34-94A Lind Property — Overall Development Plan (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: April 18, 2001 ❑ No Comment ® Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** —qc 111". --)t xi► 6 OF u5i'lAl/ a F,& 6 Afr— At► xu- r5 oT5 f J%r srrocr Po6 4&-r wa.JpE Ap.. o� . e, q-1AW1 L4KAY ►Aevn6cr- 41ai-(e;+6 ,.lsEs ��-� ---!O� r e r 4WWkM CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Daft _ site Drainage Report Signatixf�er Utility _ Redline Utility — Landscape 0 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 28, 2001 TO: Stormwater PROJECT: #34-94A Lind Property — Overall Development Plan (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: April 18, 2001 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** 4� c e�5� VV CIC Z�.A CQ w CHECK HERE IF YO H TO RECEIVE, COPIES OF REVISIONS f Datft Site DreiW Report Signatufb5er c & /n Utility _ Redline Utility _ Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 28, 2001 TO: Trans Planning PROJECT: #34-94A Lind Property — Overall Development Plan (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: April 18, 2001 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments -Site Plan **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE • Does Traffic or Engineering Depa�ED *kth proximity of local/Minor Arterial intersection (approx. NO) north o 2. • Collector roadway network shown as per previous discussions/charette. • Identify where northern road connection matches up. Does this match up with Semmnonte? With any existing road to the west? • What is the anticipated facility type of this northern roadway? Collector, Connector? • Provide for good bicycle & pedestrian circulation and connectivity internal to your site, particularly to Neighborhood Center and Commercial areas. • What is applicant's plan for providing/contributing to planned pedestrian/bike connections across the canal to the planned trail system? TIS Comments ji 1 i�rm I OL • Why weren't the WalMart traffic projections included in the TIS backgr . • Eric Bracke has identified several errors and concerns with the TIS (both�sii s PPrrovide OOP revised TIS addressing these issues and reflecting the roadway network t. now planned. Provide copies to Traffic, Engineering and Transportation Planning. II qq • Address intersections identified as failing our APF criteria (Country Clul)Rk-G�1 an identify plans for mitigation. • Note internal Collector Streets to include bike per standards in discussign of bike facili' s. WF C,M �ro�idlt 9nn•Qt-SCJ74rwi-.sl CA'S$inr7 s— C^".) -10 ' fpltcw,..�1 'to �� qq�e� `'�"'d� ros CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS �n ,Odom Dat& )a Site Drainage Report SignatttfbSerL-'( l Utility — Redline UtlhV REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 28, 2001 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #34-94A Lind Property — Overall Development Plan (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: April 18, 2001 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** Lind Property ODP — April 13, 2001 1. Clearly show the property line and the ditch location. 2. Label the bridges over the canal. 3. The vicinity map is not accurate. 4. Label both pedestrian underpasses. 5. Need to correct the traffic study in accordance with Eric Brackes comments and need to indicate what improvements can and would need to be done in order to meet LOS criteria. 6. The alternative compliance request states that the Windsor Reservoir Ditch and Canal Company own the # 8 Outlet Ditch. In accordance with GIs Documents there is only two owners of property within this square mile the applicants and Bartran. 7. Change note 2 and 3 as shown. 8. Add notes 9 and 10 9. Location of access points and certain street alignments may change with the submittal and review of the PDP plans. 10. The proposed boundary connections are a minimum street access requirement. Further connections to the collector streets shall be reviewed in accordance with the LUC at the time of PDP submittal to determine if direct access thru the site is being met. CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Iatfit tQute Drainage Report SignaWft� ,(Utility Redline Utility _ Landscape Citv of Fort Collins impacts of any change in the # of units relative to the Transportation Impact Study. 8. Based upon what staff knows at this point in time, we will support your request -for a waiver from the contiguity requirement for Overall Development Plans. 9. Please provide an updated statement of planning objectives due to the change in the size, density and labeling of the development pods. These changes may effect the phasing plan as well. 10. Please include the written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting at this time. The neighborhood meeting had not yet been conducted at the time of writing the previous narrative.' 11. Under the narrative description of how conflicts between land uses are being avoided extensive landscaping is referenced. Landscaping is not an ODP issue, nor is it shown on an ODP. I recommend you stick with an explanation that discusses the intensity of land uses and their proximity to one another, and other issues that can be addressed at the ODP level. 12. Please revise the development phasing schedule. 13. Please elaborate on Policy HSG-2.5 and see redlines of narrative. 14. The narrative appears to. address many issues that are not applicable to this property or this level of review. The narrative should focus upon the AN (All New Neighborhoods) and LMN (Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood) policies. These policies are completely ignored. Attached are copies of redlines of the plan and narrative from Current Planning. If you have any questions regarding the comments contained herein, or regarding the comments of any other referral agency, please feel free to contact me at 416-2138. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on April 27, 2001 to discuss many of these comments in person. We look forward to meeting with you on site this Thursday. Thank you for your continued cooperation and efforts. Sincerely, Brian Austin Grubb, AICP City Planner 2. Another traditional design feature is to have the view of a collector street terminated by a building with significant architecture. This design concept is typically called "termination of vistas". Usually the building terminating the vista is civic in nature; however in this case, the building could be one of the neighborhood center buildings. The street mentioned in comment #1 could be terminated by a ground -level view of an architecturally significant building with Long's Peak in the background. 3. The location of the neighborhood center is excellent, although not labeled correctly. Please provide a closed polygon for each of the Neighborhood Center pods and label them as "Neighborhood Center" rather than "Neighborhood Commercial". 4. Please clearly indicate the following information on the plans: • Property Boundaries; • Existing City Limits; • Existing Urban Growth Area; • Zoning of all surrounding properties including those in the County; • Off -site streets and parcel lines within 150 feet (i.e. Serramonte Drive); • Top of bank for the ditch; • Existing improvements including the farmstead; • Existing vegetation in excess of 2.5 inches; and • All major utilities. 5. Please provide a legend to indicate what the following symbols mean: • Arrows — It is assumed that these represent local street connections? • Asterisk in the Neighborhood Center — Does this represent open area? • Trail — The trail along the ditch should probably be shown with a different symbol than the regional trail. • Bridges (Type?) • Dashed line for ditch buffer • Dashed line between large asterisk and regional trail. 6. Please modify/add information to the Alternative Compliance request to include the 300/800 spacing variation in the southwest corner of the property. Staff will likely support this aspect of the alternative compliance request. 7. The plan indicates that there will be a maximum of 5.81 dwelling units per acre (gross). This is in compliance with the requirements of the LMN Zone District; however, you may want to consider increasing the maximums to reflect 8 dwelling units per acre. If the 5.81 units per acre is approved, then an amended ODP would be required to increase the density by more than 1 percent, even though the desired increase in density falls within the requirements of the LMN zone district. An increase in density of less than 1 percent could be done as a minor amendment. Please don't forget about the Commu 7 Planning and Environmental Current Planning City of Fort Collins April 30, 2001 Centex Homes c/o Jim Sell Design Inc. Attention: Vaughn Furness 153 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Subject: Round 2 Staff Review Comments Lind Overall Development Plan File # 39-94A vices 6, - \r Thank you for your submittal of the Overall Development Plan for a parcel commonly known as the Lind Property. Staff has reviewed the proposal and offers the comments contained herein and comments by attachment from the following agencies: City of Fort Collins Engineering (Including Redlines) City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning (Including Redlines) City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations City of Fort Collins Park Planning City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation City of.Fort Collins Advanced Planning The following agencies were sent copies of the plan and responded as indicated below: City of Fort Collins Natural Resources — No Comment City of Fort Collins Transfort — No Comment Poudre Valley School District — No Response East Larimer County Water District — No Response Current Planning has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: 1. Does the collector street that runs from the southwest to the northeast align with views of Long's Peak? This would be a nice design feature for the subdivision and the neighborhood center itself. This traditional design approach should be considered, if it's in the realm of the possible. 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020