HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARDWALK CROSSING PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-05-28CITY OF FORT COLLINS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
December 13, 1984
Mr. Jim Cox
Architecture Plus
318 East Oak
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Jim,
For your information, attached
concerning Holter PUD which was
meeting on December 10, 1984.
is a copy of the staff's comments
presented at the Conceptual Review
It should be clearly understood the attached comments are offered
informally by staff to assist the applicant in preparing the detailed
components of the project application. Nothing contained herein shall
preclude the staff from making modification of, or additions to, the
above comments at the time of formal application.
If you should have any questions please feel free to call this office
at 221-6750.
J oe F ra k
Senio City Planner
JF/kb
Attachment
CC: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
lip
ci
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O Box 580 • Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 • 003)221-6750
DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
February 20, 1985
George A. Holter
3501 S. Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Dear George,
The staff has reviewed the application for preliminary and final PUD
approval of the Boardwalk Crossing PUD and offers the following comments:
Preliminary Plan
1. There is some question regarding the type of development approval being
sought i.e. master, preliminary or final approval. Judging from the
detail of the plans submitted, it is my impression that you are asking
for preliminary approval for the entire site and final PUD approval for
the first phase, rather than Master Plan approval and preliminary PUD
approval of the first phase as was submitted. The following comments
will be based on this impression. We will need to discuss this issue
further.
2. The following additional information should be shown on the preliminary
site plan:
a. Title should indicate that this is a preliminary PUD plan;
b. Parking needed for proposed uses;
c. Existing structures and existing significant vegetation on the
site;
d. Building height in stories as well as feet;
e. Listing of specific land uses being proposed;
f. Area shown on the site plan shall extend beyond the property lines
to include the area and land uses within 150 feet, including land
uses, structures and curb cuts;
g. Dimensions of drives, sidewalks and curb cuts;
h. Distance from centerlines of streets to proposed curb cuts, and;
i. Building envelope dimensions.
3. All sidewalks must be designed to City standards. Sidewalks along
College Ave. will need to be seven feet in width and along other
streets will need to be five feet in width.
.w. a.' ....'......:_lur.a, r ''. �^fl ���flYi'.L'a. ""�-:—•'r+•�w.i. aa:: _.i�:a':_a.n� •=ti.str.b � .�. .-s..�. :.: �. c.... .•. ........ ... . ., uw as..,.L:::�.i'n..u:f:.w..M�wwLS ti. J:v6.I�.wTnmeAk:Y��!�CIiYI
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303)221-6750
DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
4. The medians at the curb cuts will need to be setback a minimum of
twenty feet from the flowline of adjacent streets. All curb cuts will
be concrete to property lines.
5. The applicants should provide pedestrian access from the public
sidewalks to the buildings and internal pedestrian system. Spec;a
paving treatment should be incorporated in parking areas at important
pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian connection to LaBelle's should also be
evaluated.
6. The staff would recommend that the parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks
or open space be reduced to seventeen feet in length. In these cases,
the sidewalk. will need to be a minimum of 6 feet in width. The staff
also questions whether adequate space has been provided between stalls
and drive -through facility for pad D. How will one-way traffic be
controlled in this area?
7. Handicapped parking spaces and ramps must be shown on the site plan.
8. What is proposed edge treatment along the southern boundary of the
property. Please clarify.
9. The radius of the curb return off of Boardwalk should be 20 feet.
Radius of all islands in parking lot should be minimum of 20 feet
inside and forty feet outside. Please verify.
10. Entrances to Mason St. at north end and south end of property should
be designed as City standard curb cuts rather than curb returns.
Please revise.
11. With the installation of Boardwalk Drive, off -site storm drainage flows
will be "cut: off". Where will they go? The proposed plans cannot
create ponding on north properties nor can this additional water, if
routed onto Boardwalk, cause street flooding problems. Please address
these problems. There are some additional storm drainage comments.
See Bonnie Tripoli for details.
12. The slopes in the parking lots will cause some problems, for instance,
frequent ponding of water and icy conditions.
13. An additional fire hydrant will be required near the Boardwalk
entrance. Please see Bonnie Tripoli for details.
14. An erosion control plan may be required for this project by the State
Health Department.
15. The building elevations should indicate exterior materials and colors.
16. The Traffic Impact Study appears to indicate one direction, yet the
design of the site plan takes another. For instance, the traffic
impact study indicates:
a. The need for a 290 foot deceleration lane on College Ave. The plan
as submitted shows 230 feet.
b. The need for a right turn only lane on Boardwalk Drive at the
intersection with College Ave. None is shown.
c. A full -turn access to the site from Boardwalk located approximately
360 feel: west of the Boardwalk/College intersection and a
secondary, right -turn -out exit to Boardwalk Drive, located
approximately 220 feet from the intersection. The plan as
submitted shows only one full access curb cut located approximately
290 feet from the intersection. How will the proposed location of
the curt) cut to Boardwalk effect the future location of curb cuts
to Winston's restaurant. Further study and coordination with the
adjacent property owners is needed.
d. Medians in College Ave need to be shown on the site plan. In order
to make the College Ave access point work, it may be necessary to
install the median with development of the property.
The applicants will need to provide adequate justification for the
apparent discrepancy between the plan and the traffic study.
17. Exterior lighting of buildings and parking lots should be indicated on
the site plan.
18. Trash areas appear inadequate in terms of number and location.
Please provide evidence to justify the plan design. Also, the staff
questions t:he desirability of locating the trash area for building D
at the major entrance to the project.
19. The width of the greenbelt along all streets appears to be inadequate
in terms current practices. Also, the greenbelt areas should include
berming, trees, evergreens and shrub beds. The amount of greenbelt
being provided between parking/driveways for building D does not
appear to tie consistent with other greenbelts approved for similar
uses in recent plans. Applicant will need to provide evidence to
justify the setback of these areas.
20. The staff does not feel that the setback of building A is adequate
relative to the setback of the Labelle's store. The dramatic
difference in setback will tend to separate the site from its
neighbor. The applicant should re-evaluate the plan in terms of
reducing this difference. Also, the staff questions the relatively
small setback of buildings B and C from Boardwalk Drive. Applicant
should provide evidence as to visual impact of the buildings being so
close to this important collector street.
21. The applicants should provide evidence as to how the design and
arrangement of elements of the site plan will contribute to the
overall reduction of energy use by the project. Written evidence as
well as notes on the site plan should be provided.
22. Additional planter areas should be provided along the northern
frontage of buildings A and D . Upright plant materials (trees and
evergreens) should be located in these areas.
23. Parking islands should include low lying shrubs in addition to trees.
Please revise.
24. Foundation plantings, berming and other landscape treatment should be
considered along the north edge of building B and C to soften the
effect of the buildings.
25. The staff questions the design of the College Ave entrance to the
project. How will the islands be treated? Please provide evidence to
justify the site plan.
26. The staff questions the need for the additional parking lot driveway
aisle north of building D and east of the major driveway. The staff
would recommend that it be eliminated.
27. A loading zone for building D should be provided. Please revise.
28. The appropriate land use category for the project would be "Business
Services" for the retail portion and "Auto -related and Roadside
Commercial" for the drive -through restaurant. The staff questions the
points you have taken on the point charts. I would recommend we meet
to discuss this issue.
29. Screening treatment of trash areas should be indicated on the site
plan.
Final
30. I could not: find a final site plan for phase 1. A final site plan
should be submitted which addresses the requirements of the PUD
regulations. It may be necessary to continue the approval of the
final PUD to the April meeting in order to allow staff enough time to
review the final plan documents. Additional comments may be following
the submittal of the final site plan.
31. Comment 1 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23,
26, and 29 should be considered applicable to the final plan as well
as the preliminary plan.
32. There appears to be a number of existing significant trees which are
to be removed as a result of the construction of the restaurant.
Criterion number 13 of the All Development category of the LDGS states
that " the project preserve significant vegetation to the extent
practical". I would recommend that you contact Tim Buchanan, City
Arborist, as soon as possible for his comments on the desirability
and practicality of saving these trees.
33. On Monday, March 18, 1985, 8 112 x 11" PMT reductions of the final and
preliminary plan documents, colored renderings of the preliminary and
final site plan and building elevations, and ten full size copies of
the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations (both
preliminary and final) should be delivered to this office.
3 4. Signed mylars of the final site plan, landscape plan, subdivision plat
and building elevations should be submitted to me no later than 12:00
noon Thursday, March 21. Also on that date, a signed Site and
Landscape Covenants document should also be submitted.
I would recommend we meet as soon as possible to discuss the above
comments. Revisions to the plans should be submitted to me no later than
Friday, March 8, The above deadlines should be followed in order for the
item to be considered at the March meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Board. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Joe Frank
Senior City Planner
CC: Sam Mutch, Planning Director
Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
Roger Booker, Architectural Plus
28 (-lay 85
JUN 7 1985
{--i' 10-85 A BOARDWALK CROSSING, Phase 1, Preliminary (Revisions)
:a. s
PLANNIN15
6EPARTMENT
t! 0 1 s'.) NI IV] Erw * ]\] T S
J !,j
wl
-�, ems. ��Jo�"��► so�ri� I2.
0: (,tS. L iti ate- F&4mot,jAw- .
cyr�
- ,s1— •�• cam • LAN - /VA59y,) gr t3E---
�x�•r�
h Gam, -SS I
c.Z �� icy C� . �^ �•
""— 28 May 85 �
s-- 10--85B BOARDWALK CROSSING, PHASE 1, FINAL � a
JUN ag,5
PLArdNp?di:
DEPAPTt,;iE= �-T
T s c am 74A-F V8- g r vTlLtry
��4s ►fit b�!`T -Pt,p 5U iW Its 1'1 i>� Sov� �i 4 �T . Q � _ �, p �/
(N fDts W-,P VYJ Or— CatI 4 �rJ� f 0 )°+Izn U1�Al�K. �R, V�
60
w(u— AAAKZ-- 11-f't s FAd55
Mc — ,A M � tInrc uru o 13 r—F—a — IAJU�e-- rQ 771.=-- Axs-A
A Z: 28 May 85 DIE,71P A RTJ-VS
II E!��11 Is a 10-85B BOARDWALK CROSSING, PHASE 1, FINAL
M. M'r � N T S
Ace,
14 A4
6f 64,11
17,1
dL
6..5 e-�
STATE OF COLOKADO
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
y�
P.O. Box 850
u
Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850
(303) 353-1232
OF
w., OF GOL
RECEIVED
June 6, 1985 JUN 1 1 1985
PLANNING
Community Development Department DEFARTMe iT
City of Ft. Collins
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO 80522
Dear Sir or Madam:
Larimer Co., S.H. 287
Boardwalk Crossing
P.U.D., N. of LaBelle':
on W. Side Hwy. 287
DOH File 45100
We have reviewed the Boardwalk Crossing P.U.D., Phase I, and the
Traffic Impact and Accessibility Analysis, and we have the following
comments:
1. The dedication of an additional 12 feet of right of way along State
Highway 287 to achieve a 60-foot right of way west of the highway
centerline is consistent with the City standard for S.H. 287.
2. Access to this development from S.H. 287 is proposed at Boardwalk
Drive and a private right turn in and out only driveway. Boardwalk
Drive presently intersects with the east side of the highway and
is a signalized intersection.
Construction of the Boardwalk Drive access west of S.H. 287 is
acceptable but will require upgrading of the traffic signal to
accommodate 4-way traffic. A right -turn deceleration lane should
also be provided if a 60-foot right of way exists along S.H. 287
north of this intersection to accommodate this additional lane.
The right -turn -only access can be permitted, according to the State
Highway Access Code, if no other reasonable access to the general
street system is available or if denial of direct access and use of
alternative access would be more detrimental to the traffic flow
of the general street system.
Boardwalk Drive, South Mason Street, and a connection through the
LaBelle's property would be available to provide alternative access
to S.H. 287 for the Boardwalk Crossing P.U.D. We are willing to
approve the direct right -turn -only access, but it needs to be
justified based on a benefit to the general street system, ie. the
Boardwalk Drive/S.H. 287 intersection. We are also concerned about
the control of left -turn movements at this access and right -turn
egress weaving movements between this access and the Troutman Parkway
intersection. Construction of a raised median on S.H. 287 should be
pursued by the City as a means to effectively prohibit left turns.
CONCEPT UAL. REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
MEETING DATE: December 10, 1984
ITEM : Holter PUD
APPLICANT: Jim Cox, Architecture Plus, 318 East Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80524
LAND USE DATA:
95,000 square feet of retail space and 3,000 square feet Kentucky Fried
Chicken facility on 8 acres
COMMENTS:
1. Water service will be from line in Boardwalk. Sewer service will
be from Mason Street.
2. 60 feet of ROW will be needed in College Avenue.
3. Traffic Impact Study will be required.
4. Setback of parking or drives at entrance on Boardwalk will need to
be a minimum of 60 feet.
5. Major access should be provided off Mason Street.
6. State permit for access off College Avenue will need to be
provided.
7. Curb cut location to surrounding streets needs to be coordinated
with adjoining properties.
8. Landscaping on restuarant site is lacking.
9. Additional green area should be provided along streets.
10. Pedestrian tie to main facility should be planned.
11. Cross vehicular access should be planned for.
12. Drive-thru facility does not appear adequate in terms of stacking
and interface with parking.
13. Evidence should be provided as to how the restaurant will fit
into the rest of the site in terms of landscaping, architecture,
pedestrian circulation, etc.
14. Design of retail facility appears to be a "strip" commercial.
Alternative design should be investigated in terms of providing
more interest in site design.
City of Ft. Collins
June 6, 1985
Page Two
If a traffic analysis supports the need for the right -turn -only
access, an Access Permit will be required for its construction.
Application for this permit is made to the City Transportation
Department. The design of this access including the right -turn
deceleration lane must be included with the application. The
length of this lane, as shown on the Site Plan, is not consistent
with the design standards in the Access Code and a Variance would
also be required with the application. We question the desirability
of the short acceleration lane leading from this access, and
recommend that it not be constructed.
3. The topographic contours for this site indicate that some surface
runoff from this site has flowed toward S.H. 287. Detention
should be provided on this site so that the historical runoff rate
will not be exceeded.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this P.U.D. Please contact
Wally Jacobson at this office if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
ALBERT CHOTVACS
DISTRICT ENGINEER
John K. Crier
Distri,4 Planning/Environmental Manager
JKC:WJ:mbc
cc: A. Chotvac.s
D. Yost
Area Foreman
File: Crier -Jacobson
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
January 9, 1985
Mr. George Holter
C/O Architecture Plus
318 East Oak
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear George:
For your information, attached is a copy of the staff's comments concerning
Boardwalk Crossing PUD which was presented at the Conceptual Review
meeting on January 7, 1985.
It should be clearly understood the attached comments are offered
informally by staff to assist the applicant in preparing the detailed
components of the project application. Nothing contained herein shall
preclude the staff from making modification of, or additions to, the above
comments at the time of formal application.
If you should have any questions please feel free to call the Community
Development Department at 221-6750.
Sincerely,
t �
Joe Frarik
Senior, City Planner
JF/kb
Attachment
CC: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
Sam Mutch, Planning Director
t �.' * •�:
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303)221-6750
DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
CONCEF ,'UAL. . REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
MEETING DATE: January 7, 1985
ITEM : Boardwalk Crossing PUD
APPLICANT: George Holter, C/O Architecture Plus, 318 East Oak, Fort Collins, CO 80524
LAND USE DATA:
113,948 square feet of shopping center on8.6 acres located on the southwest
corner of Boardwalk and College Avenue
COMMENTS:
1. Additional loading zones will be required.
2. Bicycle, motorcycle and handicapped parking will be required.
3. Curb cuts should align with existing or proposed curb cuts on public
streets.
4. State approval of curb cuts to College Avenue will be required.
5. Sidewalks should be designed to City standard.
6. 60 feet of POW along College Avenue will be required.
7. The island design of entrance to College Avenue may create problems.
8. Traffic Impact Study will be required. Study will need to justify curb
cut to College Avenue.
9. Design of de -acceleration lane does not appear to meet City standard.
10. The curb cut to Mason Street should be emphasized. It should be widened
to include left turn -no right turn -out bays. Landscape median should be
considered.
11. Spacing of southern curb cut should consider location of existing curb
cut to Target.
12. Setback of parking lane from flowline of Mason Street needs to be
closely evaluated to allow sufficient stacking.
13. Additional landscaping needs to be provided along frontage of all
buildings, including along Mason Street.
14. Pedestrian tie between restaurant and retail facility needs to be
provided for.
15. The center island at Boardwalk entrance should be shortened.
16. Staff questions the design of loading zone in terms of semi -truck
access.
17. The setback of the 6,000 square foot retail building appears to
conflict with the setback of LaBelle's. Would recommend shifting the
building back to reduce the relative difference in setbacks.
18. Pedestrian connections between street sidewalks and interior
circulation system needs to be provided for.
19. Restaurant needs to be architecturally compatible with rest of
buildings on the site.
20. Restaurant needs more foundation planting.
21. Question distribution of parking for restaurant. Would recommend
eliminating or reducing number of parking north of building.
22. Setback of parking from sidewalk along all streets should be a minimum
of 15 feet in width.
DATE s Fet85 DEPARTMENT :-n,
: 10-85 BOARDWALK CROSSING PUD MASTER PLAN
ITEM
COMMENTS
- I 4
Dj ` 6 FEB 85
1 T E Vrl: 10-85A BOARDWALK CROSSING PUD, PHASE 1 Prelimi6ary
l�
a. tv0
00
7
Lx&
,e LA -4 k" la/q�l I Zli
MEMOR INDUN
Bob Snow
Mountain Bell - Engineering
124 W. Magnolia
TO:
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
RE: Utility Plans
DATE: February 7, 1985
Submitted for your reviev) and comment are, utility plans for
Boardwalk Crossing
Please respond by
February 22, 1985
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
M E M 0; t A r l D UM
Bob Snow
Mountain Bell -Engineering
124 W. Magnolia
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
Utility Plans
February 7, 1985
Submitted for your revie:-) and comment are utility plans for
Boardwalk Crossing, Phase 1, PUD
Please respond by
February 22, 1985