HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARDWALK AT THE LANDINGS PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-05-28L-' P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Ph(303) 4844220 Ext. 728
CITY OF FORT COI I INS
ow
ENGINEERING DIVISION
July 29, 1980
Mr. Dennis Donovan
Osprey Homes, Inc.
300 Spinnaker Lane
Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Dennis:
I have been informed that the
by your utility contractor fo
Landings 4th subdivisions have
approved by the City.
Re: Whalers Cove, Boardwalk
Landings 4th
water line stub outs installed
r the Whalers Cove, Boardwalk and
not been pressure tested or
When you and our Inspector Matt Baker met on the job site on
July 15, 1980 he was informed that your firm intends to use
Boardwalk Drive and Whalers Way as the main access roads to
service the other areas under development. He stated at that
time that all stub outs had to be pressure tested and approved
prior to the placement of the asphalt mat. The reasons for this
are to avoid cutting into a newly surfaced street or possible
contractor conflicts in the event the utility contractor should
change before the completion of the project.
When your contractor pressure tested this line he elected not
to test these stubs in conjunction with the twelve (12") main.
He was at this time informed each stub out would have to be
tested individually before any street paving.
In order tc avoid any conflict at the time you have scheduled
the street improvements, I ask that you make sure all the necessary
testing and approvals have been taken care of prior to the
placement cf base course and asphalt materials.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
David Stringer
Chief Engineering Construction Inspector
1 ? 1 ��� DRUID JID DR.,
5, COLORADO 80525
OS4
Ph! I
�Ir. M,nar•i Rupel
City F,n(,incer-Development
City of Tort Collins
Post: - Office Box 580
I�ort C()I I it,,;, Colorado 80522
Lk�ar �i,auri
1allua ry 26, 1,981
Rc:. City Participation in Boardwalk Drive Oversizing
'Phis request for re:.lnbrlrsement from the. City cf fort Collins to Landings, Ltd., t11e
devel-_)pol- of The 1-:andings P.U.D., is for oversi.-in, Boardwalk Drive from harmony
Rorld to the srn_1th l ,ne of the Cite Park site.
'l`hc rcImy Agreement for City Participation is per the Subdivision A;,reement for The
koal�dw(llk at The Landin<,s P.I-],DAl . , dated ,'1rci1 8. 11i-179. As outlined in the Sul-)-
(I -1<'r('r'liwnt, t I : c City 1s responslble tvr '>1'crng Bo,irchmIk- Drive as a
ec 1 or' tit 1"ect r'a _ hc'r th.:n as a l o" a 1 s- r e,:t . 111.1t include-, the repavment to t;le
!;rr t}ac c(1st_s of street imt11:), cments in ex s of forty (40) feet wide, phis
th(• extra tease cour�>e depth above that ro'quir•cd for local streets in the rem;ainino
fcntti(Il?) feet of width. 'the local street tease' course thickness required for this
irc,l of The [�lndint;s P,11:D, is four (4) i7chcs. The City is being, billed for the
remrlill inc} three (3) inch thickness for the seven (�) ir;ch tot11 base course section
for I>oardw;l 1 k Drive as .r collector street.
Ro.irdwrllk Drive was c()llstructed according to the l_)ti 1 i-ty Prins for The Pier Condo-
miniumis, since cert,iin revisians tie The Bom-h%11k Commercial (`:enter plans were re -
au i 1 ed during f ina 1 approvn l of The Pier (;ondomi ni e ens .
,attached to this letter PIC' Sc fin,] the calculation dicers (pages 1, 2 and .511 that
sul%I)urr the re(lu(,st for reimbursement of $1 )71c, 15 for this reach of Boardw�ilh Criv,,
in 'fhc I,nndinos P.H.D.
1s n l wrlvs , th(lsrk you very much for your C,)Orel-atirnl in fi ,<, I i z<,t ion and payment cf
tlli � rr({ucsT ,
Sinc.�rely,
()SPi?F'N . 1VC
?cnn�s I,. Donol,an, P.P
0siC!0nt
L<lnd hevelopment
Attachment
THE PIER PHFASANT RUN 41,RPC-)R �.1rAL_ PARK CENTRAL
STONEHENGE • THE LANDINGS BOAR[YuVAI_K 0 PARK PLACE 0 CREGFF= PLAZA
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ENGINEERING SERVICES
November 5, 1985
Holter Realty
George A. Holter
3501 South Mason
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear George:
This letter will confirm the items we discussed by phone last Thursday
regarding the paving of Boardwalk between College and Mason.
The pavement section must be built in accordance with the redesign
specified in -the new soils report done for the P.U.D. The old pavement
design for the subdivision approved in 1980 is not adequate. In 1981
the City adopted new standards because so many streets built by the
old ones were falling apart.
According to our development procedures, you are required to develop
with a P.U.D. for the type of development that you are doing. With
the P.U.D. process we are allowed to require upgrading of plans to
bring the project into conformance with current City standards.
That is what was done with this development project.
You asked if -the City could participate or help out with any of the
additional cost. The Street Oversizing Fund will pick-up the cost
of pavement in the center of Boardwalk for the additional width over
a local street width. However, we have no other program that could
contribute to any other portion of the street cost.
You mentioned that you were not aware that you could have developed
the subject property with the existing subdivision and, therefore,
could have used your original design. I would suggest that you
discuss this issue with the Planning Department staff if you feel
you may have been misled.
lie-
-
221-6E05
ENGINEERING SERVICES 300 LaPorte Ave. • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 f30JJ
George Holter
November 5, 11385
Page Two
I have one last item. Please continue to work with Jim Hoff
and provide him with your street costs. He will help you in
getting repayment from property owners adjoining the street
improvements ,you paid for as they develop.
If you have any further questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Herzig
Acting City Engineer
cc: Linda Hopkins
Commur Planning and Environmental S 7ices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
June 16, 2000
Mr. Mick Aller
748 Whalers Way, Suite E-200
Fort Collins, CO 80525
SUBJECT: Aller - Minor Amendment —Boardwalk at the Landings PUD #8-80A
Dear Mr. Aller:
This letter is in response to your Minor Amendment application dated May 23, 2000. The Fort Collins
Land Use Code (LUC) Sections 2.2.10 and 2.14 allows an applicant/developer to make minor amends of
an approved site specific development plan as long as the development application, as so amended,
continues to comply with LUC standards. Staff reviewed your application for compliance with LUC
standards and for possible adverse effects your proposal may have on the overall Boardwalk at the
Landings PUD development.
A) Prior to the approving this minor amendment revised site/landscape plan and elevations shall be
submitted to the Planning Department that are clearly dated and labeled "Revised Site/Landscape
Plan and Elevation for Boardwalk at the Landings". The plans shall contain the following revisions:
1) The plan set needs to include reference to the Index of Drawings on the first plan sheet page.
2) Please label the shE�et plan sets Sheet 1 of 5±, Sheet 2 of 5±, et cetera in the lower right hand corner
of each applicable sheet of the project development plan.
3) Delineate all property lines, property line setbacks for all proposed and existing structures and
improvements, right-of-way width and improvements, private drive widths, and sidewalk widths on all
plans. The plan sets need to include the exact building envelope/footprint dimensions and distance
to nearest platted property lines and not be located within existing utility easements.
4) Show existing trees (including species and diameter) and designate whether they are to remain or be
removed. Tree protection is required according to LUC with Section 3.2.1(F).
5) Per LUC Section 3. 2.1(D)(2) street trees shall be placed at thirty-foot to forty -foot spacing intervals in
the center of all parkway areas and/or three (3) to seven (7) feet behind existing attached sidewalks.
The trees shall be placed at least eight (8) feet away from the edges of driveways and alleys, and
forty feet (shade trees)/fifteen feet (ornamental trees) (LUC 3.2.1(K) from any street light. Street tree
locations shall be coordinated with the Water/Wastewater Department and Light and Power.
6) Please note LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping (a) and (b) address the
need to screen parking areas with the a plan clearly identifying the extent and location of all plant
material and landscape features.
7) All parking lots need to meet the parameters addressed in LUC Section 3.2. 1 (E)(5)(a) — (e) including
3.2.2(13)(5)(a) walkways shall have one (1) canopy shade tree per forty (40) lineal feet of walkways
planted in a landscape strip within five (5) feet of such walkway.
8) Per Section 3.2.2(M) and Section 3.2.1(E)(5) — (6) requires a certain percentage of the interior space
of any parking lot bE� devoted to interior parking landscaping depending on the amount of parking
spaces. The actual interior parking lot landscaping percentages and parking spaces need to be
shown.
9) Show existing vegetation.
'81 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0,W • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 4t6-2020
10) The plant list does not list sizing of plant types and please differentiate shrub and tree varieties.
11) The requirement for "full tree stocking" [LUC Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c)] has not been satisfied on the
north site of the proposed building. This section of the code requires that formal or informal
groupings of trees must be planted in all areas within 50 feet of the building spaced at 30 to 40 feet
intervals.
12) After revising the site/landscape, please make sure the minimum species diversity is provided in
accordance with Section 3.2.1(D)(3) of the Land Use Code.
13) Verification of the irrigation system connection points to ensure all landscaping is continuously
maintained per Section 3.2.1(J).
14) Indicate all bus, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation routes and loading areas.
15) The primary facade and entry does not face the adjacent street, and you have not demonstrated that
all possible efforts to comply with this standard have been attempted. The primary facade and
primary entry also does not face a connecting walkway. Per Section 3.5.1(C) of the LUC, to the
maximum extent feasible, primary facades and entries shall face the adjacent street. If facing a
street is not feasible, at a minimum, a main entrance shall face a connecting walkway with a direct
pedestrian connection to the street. "Maximum extent feasible" is defined in Article 5 of the LUC as
"no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or
minimize harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken." "Connecting walkway" is defined in
Article 5 of the LUC as "any street sidewalk, or any walkway that directly connects a building
entrance(s) to the street sidewalk... without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or
driveways, around buildings, or follow parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route."
The approved PUD pedestrian linkages shall be maintained and enhanced with the entrances on the
west and south facades.
16) The 9 feet wide pedestrian way identified on the approved PUD going west into the parking lot seems
to have been de-emphasized from how it was shown in the original PUD plan. This walkway is a
very important link to the rest of the office park, and must meet the provisions of Section
3.2.2(C)(5)(a)&(b). This sidewalk shall be grade separated from the parking lot, with paved surface
not less than six feel: in width. In locations where this walkway crosses the drive aisle, the breaks in
continuity of drive aisle paving and not in the pedestrian access way. Onsite pedestrian systems
should provide directness, continuity, and safety and minimize the number of driveway and drive
aisle crossings. The proposed elevations have windows that do not satisfy Section 3.5.1(F)(3)(c) of
the LUC, where windows are required to be individually defined with detail elements such as frames,
sills, and lintels.
17) The elevations have not specified the opacity of the glass being proposed. Section 3.5.1(F) of the
LUC specifies that clear glass (reflectivity or opacity of less than 60%) shall be used for commercial
storefront display windows and doors. Please specify.
18) The proposed window openings exceed four — five feet above grade. Section 3.5.1(F)(3)(c) requires
that windows be placed to visually establish human scale and proportion. Pedestrian scale/human
scale is defined in Section 5 of the code as "the proportional relationship between the dimensions of
a building or building element, street, outdoor space or streetscape element and the average
dimensions of the human body, taking into account the perceptions and walking speed of a typical
pedestrian. It appears that the window types and placements that you have proposed do not meet
these requirements .and a re -design is needed to meet the Land Use Code.
19) Per Section 3.5.1(B) of the LUC, the brick color on your proposed building must match the brick color
of the existing buildings within the PUD. Please provide color samples. Please indicate all building
colors (stone, bricks, stucco, et cetera with a color pallet) on the Building Elevations in accordance
with Section 3.5.1(G) of the Land Use Code.
20) The trash enclosures need to incorporate recycling. It is not clear to staff if this need is met. Hence,
scaled design elevations for all trash enclosures need to be submitted to insure compliance. Section
3.5.1(J)(1) and (2) require that no trash enclosure be located within twenty (20) feet of any public
street, public sidewalk or internal pedestrian way and screened with vegetative landscaping.
21) Section 3.5.3(D)(1) of the LUC specifies that in the case of multiple building developments, each
individual building shall include predominant characteristics shared by all buildings in the
development so that the development forms a cohesive place within the community. Similar
architectural features should be carried over from the main building to the design of the smaller
buildings. Compatibility can be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of rooflines, the
use of similar proportions in building mass, similar window and door patterns, and the use of building
materials that have color shades and textures.
22) Please indicate all building dimensions, including doors, windows, et cetera, on the building
elevations.
23) Provide a detailed light plan (spec. sheet for all wall and pole mounted fixtures) insuring that all
lighting apparatuses are shielded down, which meets the Section 3.2.4 including Section 3.2.2.
24) All signs will require an additional sign permit outside this comment review.
25) Section 3.5.1(J) (2)&(3) require that utility meters, HVAC equipment, vaults, irrigation boxes,
transformers, and other utility service functions (such as conduits, and vents) shall be located and
screened so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of
view of the adjacent properties and public streets. Please provide a sketch of buildings complete
with all of the utility elements and the proposed screening so it can be determined whether or not
these requirements are being met. There is currently not enough information provided to make this
determination.
26) Please return all redlined documents with plan revisions.
27) Coordinate all easements, open areas, street, sidewalk and pedestrian crossings, infrastructure
through out the development. All infrastructure provisions need to be met and are to be in
compliance with the Land Use Code.
28) The burden of demonstrating compliance with all Land Use Code criteria is with the applicant.
Additional comments and the required number of revised plans may be forthcoming as the various
departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request.
Please provide a written response to each of the above comments with the submittal of plan revisions. In
addition, a revised site development plan drawn to scale which is clearly dated and labeled shall be
submitted to address the! above.
Please contact me at 970.221.6750 and/or e-mail: rfuchs(cDci.fort-collins.co.us if you should have any
questions or concerns related to these comments. ..
Sincerely, /
Ronald G. Fuchs
City Planner
cc: City File #8-80A
DAMy Documents\Minor Amendrrientslminor amend boardwalk aller lingle 1.doc