HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK VILLAGE PUD - FINAL - 2-87O - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (5)Commun� Planning and Environmental �ices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
Ric Hattman
Hattman Associates
145 W. Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear Ric:
AAay 14, 1998
On March 20, 1998 you were sent a letter requesting documentation that you
were actively pursuing the SpMng Creek �/iliage PUD: I have reviewed your
response with other development review staff and determined that there has been
sufficient activity related to this project to avoid taking this project to �#f�e Planning
and Zoning Board. This project will be permitted to continue processing under
the Land Development Guidance System until an additional reassessment_is
done later this year.
Should you have any questions regarding this process, please contact me.
Sincerely, �
"� �
Robert E. Blanchard
Current Planning Director
cc: Leanne Harter
docfiNd��owldgs.ltr
381 I�lorth College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, GO 80522-0580 •(970) ''21-6750 ° FAX (970) 416-2020
�
rJp c7 c��OF� Qa� '�'4..J ��
� � �SS�-uO.S
5 �w-Q�-s y�a S
April 30, �9�s �j�7—r'MAN ASSO�IATES
Robert Blanchard Architecture & Planning
Director 145 W. Swallow Raad '� Ft. Collins, C4 80525
Current Planning 970.223 . 7335 *** Fax 970. 223 .0511
City of Ft. Collins
281 North Callege Ave.
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
R£: SPRING GREEK VILLAG$ P.U.D.
Dear Sob;
The following eight pages is the response letter that I am
preparing for Leanne regarding this project. To highlight the
revisions that we have been working on the street staridards and
right of ways has been a maj or concern . The R. 0. W. with and the
conf'iguration of Shields Street in front of the site was ju5t
fina:lized with Matt aaker last vveek. This has afiected the design
of the project and setback of our design features such as green
space, parking lot setback, sidewalk width, and building setbacks.
This meeting settled the location of turn lanes, bus lanes,
bike lanes, and medians in or out of the project. With the5e items
resolved we have been able to adjust the design features that are
adjacent to Shields 5treet. Tied to these issues was the
configuration of the Stuart / Shields intersection.
Utilities that preexisted on site also complicated our
resubmittal of the project. For both of the cul-de-sacs the service
lines for the lats conflicted with the major trunk lines that cross
the site. to inelude these services within R.Q.W.'s and easements
wi�h the constraints of the landscape standards has taken us so�ne
time to resolve.
We have had to readjust almost every site £eature on the site
as a result of the comments from the variou� agencies that review
the project. If the feature was not changed by the review comments
the R. 0. W. width changes to Che new standards required the features
to be moved, We haye substantially increased the information
provided at the staff request. The project stil.l conforms to the
approved Preliminary in character, size and shape.
Another item of the work that affected the submittal process
has been the surveying and platting of the property. We were
required to verify all o� the features of the si�e because the data
�hat we had was over ten years old and not electronic in€ormati.on.
This created a timing problem in arranging to get this infor�nation
collected. The surveyors since last fall have been vexy qver
booked.
.
i
.
� �
The scheduling of the proje�t into my schedule and that of Mr.
Shear and his firm has been another problem that has kept us from
submitting revisions to you. Though this is an internal problem we
have both had the time this last month to work on the project and
are working to get the project turned back into you. Finding the
time that both of us have had the block of time at the same time to
work on thi.s took some�scheduling.
As I have mentioned we are working to return this documents to
you for review the first full week af May. This project is a
sizable project and assuring that the details are all coordinated
so that we minimize your review time has been one of our focusses.
We are taking th-is time so that we do not have to take the time to
review the project beyond this submission.
I hope that you review the attached letter and note the number
of comments and revisions that we have provided with this
submission. I hope that you can see that we are making progress and
that we are close to returning the project to you for review.
Szncerely;
`�
Fredzic J. Hattman
I
� � ' I �
�
:� ; I
��A r' I 26 1.996 � I
► � _'" ' : H;ATI'Iv�tAN ASSOC�.ATES
�� Architecture & Plannin
;RObert Blanchard ' � g
`DiXector ; 145 W. Swallow Road � Ft. Coilin�s, CO 80525
�Current Planning : 970 . 223 . ?335 I '� * '� Fax 970 . 223 . 05,11
�City of FC . Coll:ins
��28,1 North Col].ege Ave,
�FC. C011i;r��, CO 90524 �
l
,,
i .
RF : SFRZNG CRfiER VZLLAGS P�. U. D.
`� ,
•�
Dear Sob; �
P. 01•
�{ � 1
.�Cou gave me a call at the beginning of the month noti.ng tihe peri.od
�of inaCtivity in the Spring:Creek Project�. As Z indicated that due
��o fingineeri.ng work loads the .pxoject was not yet ready to resubmit
:�aut would be ready some time this month.�
,�s we gat into some issues ;with engin�e�
Comment Sheets, in particular the coa.ei
�hields Stree�, Che engineering revisxon
�Xt is still our intent�on tb suiimit the
��he first v�reek in May, which is next we
extra time will allow us to properly an�
d concerns of all Lhe differen� agenc
�rOject Co proceed to the'Planning BO�
•�
eviewed the revisions.
�lease let me know if this letter serves
�h� time fxame �or �he review s%nce we
�ubmitting the tevisions and removing
lanning Agenda. �
; •
�
r
��incerely;
� .
:� o
, i`
.;
�redric J. Hattman �
i` .
�� ,
ng that were not on the
uction of a median fvr
became moze difficult.
►i,sions to this �roject
. We belisve that Ghis
r a].1 of the quesCions
3. This will a�low the
as soon as you have
I
�
'the purpose of extending
�re a few days away from
the Plan from the May
�
�
.. � � �
April 27, 1998
Leanne A. Harter
City Planner
Current Planning
City of Ft. Collins
28I North College Ave.
F�. Collins, CO 80524
RE: SPRING CREEK VILLAG� P.U.D.
Dear Leanne;
The following letter is a response to your c�mments regarding the
Spring Creek Village project. 1 am responding to each of your
comments in the order that you presented them in your letter.
ZONING
a. Show building dimensions and distances to nearest lot line.
Dimensions to the lot lines are shown. I have added the
building dimensions.
b. Show connection to trail from the cal-de-sacs.
So added.
c. More notes required. .
The notes that are refereed to are placed on Sheet 1 of this
set. The number of parking spaces is noted on the site plan
and totaled in the table. A note as to the single family
parking is noted. I have added setback lines on the site plan.
d. Wall signs on the elevations.
Generic signs are added to the elevations. The actual signs
will be finalized at the time the specific user moves in to
the space and pull the specific permit f.or the actual sign.
e. General note #9 not allowed.
Note #9 has been revised to note Neighborhood Sign District.
f. Phasing.
Phasin:g sequence is aclded to the site plan. Phasing is to
follow the lot lines for the commercial. The Single Family
area will be developed as a single phase with respect to site
development . The ].ots will be sold and developed by owners and
developers as the market can absorb the homes.
� �
TCI
a. Tract C to allow utilities.
Tract C is revised to be an Open Space, Drainage and utility
easement.
b. No easement between Lot 23 and Strider.
There is an eight foot strip between the R.O.W. and the lot.
This area is a part of Tract C. The lot number has changed due
to other convments, but the space sta.11 remains .
BUILDzNG INSPECTION
a. Accessibility.
Accessibility to the handicapped as per the approved City
Codes is provided to this sit'e. Al1 walks are accessible as
designed. All building entries are to be accessible. If any
grades in the field do not meet the code requirements, then
said routes will be signed as such and accessa.ble routes for
this building will be added in the built environment. All
crosswalks are in raised pattern concrete on the private
property. Crosswalks in the public R.O.W. wi1,1 be�marked and
painted as per current City of Ft. Collins Street Standards.
One access to the bike path is provided as raised patterned
concrete which crosses W. Stuart.
b. Buildings to comply with current energy code.
Note has been added to the plans referencing the need to
comply with the current Residential and Nonresidential Energy
Code.
c. County Health Department
Lt is understood that for buildings and tenant spaces used
for food services wi11 need to have plans submitted to the
County at Building Permit Application.
d. Fire Protection.
Note is added as to Fire Suppression or Compartmentalization
of the buildings as per code,
e. Fire Codes for single family homes based on setbacks.
It is understood the construction requirements for single
€amily homes with respect to the setbacks.
NATUR.AL RESOURCES
a. Building locations for lots 1-9 d�nd lot �2.
The building and the lots shown on the origina�. final plan are
in the same location as were shown on the approved Preliminary
Plan for the property. Tract A was established out of this
property and determined to be proper for setbaek and
separation of Spring Creek and the bike path and the land that
can be cleveloped by the property owner. This has been
reaffirmed for numerous projeCts on this property over the
� �
last twenty years.
There are several mitigating factors as to why the proximity
of the bike path by the lots and buildings are compatible.
First the topographic difference between the trail and the
ground that the buildings will be built on is twelve feet to
fourteen feet different . This provides a visual separation and
focus away from the construction and to the trail and its
immediate surroundings. Second the tra:il traveller at this
point is concerned with the oncoming changes that are
occurring in the f'ield of travel such as the bridge, tunnel
and merging traffic. All of these are visually more important.
and are urban like structures that the trail user is focusing
on. Third there was only one point that the trail was twenty
feet away from the building. I have moved this building back
from the trail to provide a minimum of twenty-five foot of
separation. The average separation is approximately thirty-
eight feet. The cl.osest point of a lot is thirty feet and the
average separation is greater than forty feet. '1'he builclings
on these lots will have a rear yard setback of an additional
fifteen fe�t. This makes the average setback greater than
fifty-five feet.
The existing trees will not be disturbed by any construction
along the north edge o€ TraCt A. This shields the buildings
from the trail. The same visuai e�erience is provided to the
�rail traveler with views of the Condos across the areek. With
the proximity of the trail to Shields Street the experience is
of urban open space. We believe that the setbacks shown are.
more than adequate for this scale of development.
b. Cul-de-sac conneation.
Connection provided.
c. Trail access.
We are enhancing the trail connection and the connection to
and through the site.
d. Pedestrian a�cess.
This access eorridor has been enhanced.
e. Single family lots.
The yards are now shown larger and the homes will have
exterior private space.
f. Native lands�aping.,
Suggested revisions to native areas is made.
PO�ICE
a. Street name.
So changed.
b. Street name.
So changed.
.+ • � �
MAPPING
a. Street names.
Name changed.
b. Add Plat note to titles.
So added.
c. West of West Stuart.
So added.
FORESTRY
a. Street trees.
Changed. to all shade trees and at 40 foot spacing.
b. Single variety along Shields.
So changed.
c. Tree locatian south of Stuart intersection.
Trees are moved.
d. Limi.t cottonwoods and willows to native areas.
Locations are limited.
e. Change three ornamental species on p1an.
Species changed.
f. Limit three species to proteCted areas.
These trees have been limited or eliminated.
0
g. Add protection notes to plan for existing trees to remain.
Notes added to the plan.
h. Island trees to be all shade trees.
Species so changed.
ENGINFsERING
a.- Stuart collector size to Strider.
Change made.
b. Pa.rking setbacks.
Parking areas have been moved back to provide more green space
for pedestrian walkway.
c. North parking lot access on Strider,
Curb cut e3.iminated.
d. Bus stQp size.
Bus stop size increased to standards for two busses to stop.
e. Right turn lane at Shields and Stuart.
Turn lane added.
, ' � �
f. Pedestrian improvements at Shields & Stuart.
Sidewalks balloons at pedestrian spine.
g. Sidewalk width on Shields. �
Eight foot width appropria�e with bike path in street.
h. R.O.W. vacation.
We understand the need to vacate before new plat.
i. Note corrections.
So made.
j. Fliminate street trees north side o� Gandoff Court.
Trees have been moved back onto lots.
k. Tree utility conflict.
Trees moved.
1. Addition easements.
Provicled on Gandof f as noted .
m. Define tracts as to use and maintenance.
Tracts are noted as to use and maintenance.
n. R.O.W. on Shields increase to new standards.
So adcled .
o. Added R.O.W. on Stuart required.
So added.
p. Access drives concrete and 15 foot radii.
Changes so made.
q. Move Sanitary line on Gandoff Court to accommodate street
trees.
This conflicts with comment j. above. We will resolye this
conflict hy following this recommendation.
r. Additional details required.
So noted.
s. Shields width.
Refer to traffic report and sized accordingly.
t. Provide str,iping plan.
So added.
u. Plans have additional comments.
Comments inaorporated.
.+ . � �
STORN! UTILITY
Storm Drainage Department has eleven specific points that are
specific to the repor�.
WATSR/WFiSTEWATER UTILITY
a. Add utility easements that cross site in northwest corn.er.
Sasements added.
b. Fire lines and ;irrigation taps.
So added.
c. Separation of mains and curb and gutters.
So added.
d. Separation of mains.
So provided.
e. Add note as to type of sleeved water main.
So provided.
f. Hobbit service.
Abandon and tapped as requested.
Items g., h., i., j., & k. are specifiG to the Engineering set and
are resolved on the Engineering plans.
1. Coordin�te Civi1 and landscaping.
Coordination provided.
m. Civil and landscaping separation.
Proper separation provided.
n. See notes on Plans.
Red line plans reviewed.
TRANSPORTATION
a. TIS revisions.
You indicated that you discussed this directly with Gene so
this will be submitted from his office direetly to
Transportation.
b. Bus Stop.
Concerns mentioned in Engineering comments and addr�ssed at
that item.
c. Path connection to trail.
Construction and maintenance listed previously.
cl. Bike parking.
Provided as noted on red line sheets.
._ . � ' �
c. Tree spacing from Lights.
Spacing as per standard diagram is provided.
PSCO
a. Note location of gas line.
So noted.
b. Utility and tree separation.
The separation as noted is provided.
c. Utility easements.
Tract A is for spring Creek, I do not think that you want this
as a utility easement . Tract B is a drainage easement and I do
not think that you want this as a utility easement either.
Tract C will be noted as a Utility easement. This was noted
previously.
ADVANCED PLANNING
a. Move main walk.
It is so.
b. Path Connections
Paths are continuous.
c. Red line notes.
Notes reviewed and acted upon.
PA.RKS PLANNZNG
a. Confer with department as to connections.
So done.
b. Park land fee.
Understood.
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Ztems a., b., c., & d are specific to the traffic engineer and are
addressed separately.
e. Large scale of intersection.
Large scale drawing provided.
LIGHT & POWER
a. Curb and walk separation.
Typical separation shown on plan.
b. Street Trees.
Spacing of trees and electric line location is as typical
diagram.
e e � • � �
TRANSFORT
a. Bus turn out to stanelards.
Third comment on this. Frovided.
_ _
b. Bus Shelter.
Adcled and noted .
c. Shelter connection to pedestrian way.
Provid�d.
CURRENT PLANNING
a. Remove two lots.
So done.
b. Bike Racks
Added as per note from transportation.
c. Trash areas.
Shown ori elevations.
d. Separation of parking and walkway.
3�dditional separation provided.
e. Additional islands in parking.
Psdded .
f. Trail Connection from cal-de-sac.
Third comment on this. Pro^vided.
g. Colors of three blended CMU.
The block consist of three red to red anel gray units. color
samples will. be provided.
h. Provide benches.
Provided.
i. Red line comments.
Incorporated.
Tharik you for your detailed comment for this project. I believe
that we have provide the ch�nges that you want to see for t�.e
project and know that yqur suggestions will make this a better
proj ect .
Sincerely;
Fredric J. Hattman