HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAMS PARK - PDP - 12-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - (9)v
REVISION '�2 �oo�
COMMENT SHE
T H/
Y
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
DATE: July 21, 2000 TO: KATHLEEN REAVIS
PROJECT: #12-00 Rams Park — Type II (LUC)
All comments must be received by Troy Jones in Current
Planning no later than the staff review meeting:
Wednesday, August 16, 2000
No Comment
EaProblems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE**
e—
Date: L1 Signature.zz6 U
CHECK HERE IF YOU�VISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_ Plat _✓Site DBe Rqod — Other
Z6tility _ Redline Utility ✓
To: pmVj -�IAOM V%'S
Re: Ro�vh Poi+
Date: q /I
Pages: Z
(including this cover sheet)
�.�,�► S 0% COV" w\s^4
(2ajv"5 ?Ovrk foll-
w t'
City of Fort Collins
CURRENT
PLANNING
FACSIMILE
I 1 \j <>4 rye c. it
From the desk of...
Troy Jones
City Planner
City of Fort Collins - Current Planning
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Email: tjones@ci.fort-collins.co.us
970.221.6750
Fax: 970.416.2020
28. It is not clear on sheet 3 of 9 what the design features of the "central
gathering space" are. Please label proposed vegetation, paving, benches, lawn
areas, bike racks, etc. It is too difficult to read the landscape plan in this
central gathering area to determine what types of plantings are in this
location. Please show first floor window locations in the "central gathering
space" plan in order to determine if the proposed vegetation will provide
adequate privacy.
29. Some text is backwards on sheets 4 and 6 of 9.
30. Label materials and provide dimensions of the "pedestrian connection" on
sheet 3 of 9. It is also not clear if there are ramps to get over the
vehicular drive aisle or if the entire crosswalk area is raised. As shown, it
appears that curbs are drawn. Please clarify.
31. Clarify the type of lighting source on sheet 7 of 9. Section 3.2.4(D)(5) of
the LUC specifies that incandescent and high-pressure sodium light sources
can provide adequate illumination with low contrast and brightness and are
permitted light sources. Current Planning would like to see the fixtures
specified as high pressure sodium.
32. Please see the redlined plans from the Current Planning Department.
Please provide a written response to each of the above comments with the
submittal of plan revisions. Please return all drawings and reports redlined by City
staff with submission of your revisions that are clearly dated and labeled as
revised plans. Please schedule your resubmittal with Ginger Dodge and/or Voneen
Macklin of the Current Planning Department at 970.221.6750.
Please contact me at 970.221.6750 and/or e-mail: tlones@ci.fort-collins.co.us if you
should have any questions or concerns related to these comments.
incerellykVJo
,
� Tr�y es
City e
CC: Gino Campana
R
21. Comment # 29 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "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 the
building 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." Please specify the material of the utility screening (as
shown on page 9 of 9), and show in plan where these screens will be located.
22. Comment # 30 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Section
3.2.2(C)(7) Off -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations requires
that a pedestrian connection be made to College Park apartments, and that a
pedestrian sidewalk be added to the landscape area along the eastern edge
of the KFC site." City staff feels that the pedestrian connection to the
College Park apartments is extremely important. I have been informed that
the owners of the College Park apartments may not be very fond of the idea
of the connection. If this is the case, city staff would like to set up a
meeting with the College Park property owners to try to encourage them to
allow this connection. The pedestrian sidewalk along the eastern edge of the
KFC site is still not shown. Please show this.
23.Comment # 33b from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "The
preliminary plan does not show compliance with Section 4.19 (E) Development
Standards (1) Site Planning (c) Integration of the Transit Stop. Please show
the existing transit stops (east and west bound) on the site plan, landscape
plan, and overall site plan." Please show the nearest west bound transit stop
on the overall site plan.
24. The lights in the islands in the parking lot west of building 4 are shown less
than 10 feet away from canopy trees. Please use ornamental trees in these
locations reconfigure the layout of trees and lights on these islands to allow
for a greater separation distance.
25. Some of the parking stalls on the eastern drive aisle are diagonal and some
are perpendicular. The Engineering Department seems to remember that
you agreed to make them all diagonal with a one-way north traffic flow to
discourage traffic from attempting to exit from this drive aisle.
26. The revised narrative dated 7/26/00 says 4-bedroom units are proposed,
but it is my understanding that the 4-bedroom units have been eliminated
from the design. Please clarify and revise.
27. The site plan says there are 150 parking spaces proposed, but the revised
narrative says 156. Please clarify.
included with the landscape plan, it will be able to be determined if this
requirement is being satisfied." It is not clear where the 6-foot wood fence
is to be installed. The label on the site plan points to the thick black portion
of the property boundary. It is not clear if you intend to locate this fence
around the east of building 4, along the north property line, or along the
west property line. Please clarify.
16. Comment # 23 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "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. 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. Coordinate street light locations with Light and Power
so the trees can be located now without having to shift them around after
approval." Street lights are not labeled as such, therefore it does not
appear that street light locations have been coordinated with light and
power. Please coordinate.
17. Comment # 24 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "As discussed
in the latest formal meeting between city staff and the developer's design
team, the "full tree stocking" requirement is not currently being satisfied by
any of the buildings. All landscaped areas within 50 feet of any building
must provide formal and/or informal groupings of trees at 30 to 40 foot
intervals for canopy shade trees, and 20 to 30 feet for evergreens and
ornamentals (3.2.1(D)(1)(c)1" There are a few areas on the north side of
building 1 and on the east and west of building 4 that still do not meet this
standard.
18. Comment # 25 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Depict the
major pedestrian path as agreed upon in the latest meeting between staff
and the developer's design team. There will be an 8 foot path with 5 feet of
landscaped area on either side of the path, and there will be a 6 foot fence
at the curb of the KFC drive -through lane." Please dimension the elements
of the diagram titled "pedestrian connection" on page 3 of 9 so that it is
clear that the design is in fact reflecting what was agreed upon. Also, make
sure the fence between KFC and this site is shown on this diagram as well.
19. Comment # 26 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Per Section
3.2.2(M) and Section 3.2.1(E)(5) - (6) requires at least ten (10) percent of
the interior space of any parking lot be devoted to interior parking
landscaping. The actual interior parking lot and landscaped areas within that
parking lot need to be shown in order to determine if the plan has satisfied
this standard. Provide a diagram of this."
20. The trash enclosure cannot have chain link fencing with or without slats as a
screening material as specified in section 3.8.11(2) of the LUC.
4
dimensions shown on the site plan, landscape plan, or the two plan details on
page 3 of 9. Please ensure that this layer is turned on prior to printing the
plans for re -submittal.
10. Comment # 5 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Signed letters
of intent indicating that all required off -site easements and off -site rights -
of -way necessary for the project can be negotiated in time for the final
compliance plan submittal." We have received copies of the letters you sent
to the adjacent property owners requesting permission for additional trees
and a sidewalk connection to the west. Keep in mind that the original
comment # 5 still stands.
11. Comment # 7 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Delineate all
property line setbacks on the site plan. The front setback along West
Elizabeth is 30 feet, the rear property line setback (north property line) is
15 feet, and the side setbacks (east and west property lines) are 5 feet."
This was not done. Please revise.
12. Comment # 8 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "The plan set
needs to include the name of the project as well as any previous name the
site may be known as. This can be accomplished by titling the project, "Rams
Park P.D.P. and Major Amendment to West Elizabeth P.U.D." This name is
the proper name for the 9-page plan set, but the Engineering Department
needs you to title the plat and.utility plans a little bit differently. See
Engineering Comments.
13. Comment # 15 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Existing and
surrounding zoning shall be shown either on the vicinity map, the context
diagram, or the overall site plan." The zoning shown on the overall site plan
(sheet 9 of 9) is depicted in such a way that it is very hard to read. Please
graphically depict this information so it is more legible.
14. Comment # 21a from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Section
3.2.1(E)(4)(a) of the LUC requires that trees be planted every 40' between
parking lots and interior lot lines. The tree spacing along where parking lots
abut the western and northern property lines are not complying with this
standard." There is a portion along the northern parking lot that still does
not satisfy this comment. The spacing proposed is 50 feet, and the
requirement calls for no more than 40 feet.
15. Comment # 21b from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Please note
LUC Section 3.2.1(E)(4) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping (b) screening
addresses the need to screen parking areas. Screening of parking lots from
residential uses shall consist of a fence or wall six (6) feet in height in
combination with plant material. The landscape intent should be to provide a
mix of material for year round interest and mix of forms and shapes, such
as, evergreen trees and shrubs for winter months, ornamental trees
(including deciduous shrubs) for seasonal variety. As soon as the shrubs are
3
June 2000. Another copy of this drawing is included in the attached
documentation.
4. Please clarify on the revised narrative, and on a general note on the site plan
that the portion of the application that is a major amendment to the West
Elizabeth PUD is to abandon a portion of the West Elizabeth PUD.
5. Please provide the agreed upon minor amendment application to the KFC PUD
site plan. During the last large meeting that the developer's team (Gino,
Linda, and Drew) met with city staff (Peter Barnes, Troy Jones, Dave
Stringer, Ron Fuchs, Paul Eckman) held in early June 2000 (I believe the 5rh
or 6th), it was determined and agreed upon that a minor amendment would be
needed to the KFC PUD site plan in order to officially change that site plan
to accomplish the following:
a) to remove the existing parking lot north of the existing KFC
building from the site plan,
b) to move the original west lot line all the way east to the edge of
the KFC drive -up lane (section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) will require a 6-foot
fence along the drive through curb, and a 5-foot landscape
setback between the fence and the proposed pedestrian path to
adequately screen the residential from the KFC drive -up lane).
This screening requirement is required of KFC to mitigate the
impacts it's drive -up lane will have on the adjacent residential
(your proposed PDP).
6. City staff would really like for you to reduce the 6 foot high fence down to
4 feet, but we need to work out a way to accomplish this goal using the
proper process. Because the 6-foot fence height is a requirement that is
imposed on the minor amendment application of the KFC PUD, an alternative
compliance as part of the PDP will not apply. You will need to submit an
alternative compliance request to section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the LUC as part
of the KCF PUD minor amendment. You should coordinate this effort with
me (Troy Jones) and Peter Barnes.
7. The second paragraph of note 6 on the plat should be removed. This
paragraph is intended to be a general note to be added as a minor
amendment to the KFC PUD site plan, as specified in the June 30, 2000
memo from Troy Jones to Drew Thomas. A copy of this memo has been
included with this comment letter.
8. Eric Bracke has provided an update to the King Soopers/Elizabeth Driveway
portion of the Traffic Study (dated July 5, 2000). Please see the attached
copy.
9. Comment # 4 from the June 7, 2000 comment letter stated, "Add additional
dimensioning to the drawings in key locations including: drive aisle widths,
sidewalk widths, Elizabeth Street right-of-way, building height, property
lines, building footprints, and other common sense locations." There are no
2
Commu
y Planning and Environmental ' -vices
Current Planning,
City of Fort Collins
August 23, 2000
Mr. Drew Thomas
VF Ripley and Associate
401 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521-2604
Staff has reviewed your submittal for Rams Park P.D.P and Major Amendment to
West Elizabeth P.U.D., and we offer the following comments:
COMMENTS:
A. Water/Wastewater Department, Engineering Department, and Stormwater
Utility Department, Technical Services (formerly Mapping & Drafting),
Zoning:
a. Please seethe attached comment sheets and redlined utility plans from
these departments.
B. Poudre Fire Authority, Natural Resources, AT&T, Water Conservation,
Light & Power, Post Office:
a. Please seethe attached comment sheets from these departments.
C. Current Planning:
1, Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code requires that an applicant submit
revisions based on this letter within 90 days or the project application
becomes null and void. Your response to the City's concerns is due by
November 21, 2000. A 30 day extension to this deadline is available. All
requests for an extension should be directed to the Current Planning
Director. If remaining issues are those that do not require plan revisions, a
status report verifying continuing efforts toward resolving the issues is
required within the same timeline.
2. The scale of the plat is too small. Please enlarge.
3. The plat did not include the required access easement along the sidewalk
area south of building 4 and the adjacent parking lot. This was
communicated to Drew Thomas by an 11" x 17" drawing given to him in late
281 North College avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020