Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE PUD, SECOND FILING - PRELIMINARY / FINAL - 32-95F - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Natural Resources Advance Planning Water Conservation City Forester Thompson School District R2-J DALCO LAND, LLC TST Engineers Project File #32-95F 41. The Vicinity Map on the Site Plan should be updated to show current zoning. The southwesterly portion of Registry Ridge is in the UE - Urban Estate District. The Good Samaritan Home site (east of Shields Street and north of Trilby Road) is enlarged and now in the MMN - Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District. 42. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments could be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the new development review process and schedule there is a 90 day plan revision submittal time -frame mandated by the City. The 90 day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (February 29, 2000) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the ' item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an opening on the agenda. Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Steve Olt Project Planner xc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Utility Light & Power Poudre Fire Authority Stormwater Utility (Basil Hamdan) 30. The existing easements need to be vacated and new easements dedicated. 31. Storm sewers are inconsistent between the various plans. 32. Take the storm water out to the streets, in the right-of-way. 33. The grading as submitted is very preliminary. There is not enough information for the plans to be considered final. This project is not ready to schedule for a public hearing, another round of review is definitely necessary. Natural Resources (Kim Kreimeyer) 34. All plans must show the same storm sewer layout. There are inconsistencies between plans. 35. Trash enclosures are not shown, especially in the residential areas. Please incorporate recycling in the trash enclosures. Traffic Operations (Ward Stanford) 36. There are questions about the traffic volumes at the street intersections with South Shields Street. 37. There are concerns about the designation and function of Enterprize Drive. Planning 38. More detail is needed on the Landscape Plans, especially in the daycare, retail, c-store areas. This is a Final plan and it should show the planting bed layout in more detail (similar to the Typical Unit Planting Plan). 39. The c-store and retail buildings architecture, materials, and colors should be more similar, with the proposed retail building being the representative example. 40. The landscaping phasing should be for no less than 4 building at a time. Please contact Clark, at 221-6225, if you have questions about these comments. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review meeting on February 16, 2000: Engineering (Sheri Wamhoff) 20. Enterprize Drive will carry too much traffic for a residential local street. It needs to be upsized to a commercial local street, with a pavement width of 44'. 21. The drainage pans need to be on the sides of the drives. 22. The elimination of some residential buildings will not reduce the traffic on Enterprize Drive. 23. There are no pedestrian connections from the daycare, c-store, and retail building to the adjacent street sidewalks. These should be provided. 24. The subdivision plat states that the areas in the Tracts A - D outside of the building structures are easements. This could be a problem. Where are things? The envelopes could encroach into easements. 25. There are alot of utilities coming into this site from adjacent streets. There could be many necessary street cuts, which would make the utilities very expensive to install and repair. 26. The utility plans are not showing fire lines to the buildings. Some buildings may have to be fire sprinklered. Transportation Planning (Kathleen Reavis) 27. The parking for the residential area is an issue. This plan does not provide for any guest parking. 28. Enterprize Drive should be a commercial local street (with a 44' width), not a residential local street. 29. There are some outstanding pedestrian issues associated with these plans. 16. A copy of the Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes COMMENT SHEET that was received from Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, is attached to this comment letter. 17. Janet McTague of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. Light & Power needs to know themeter locations prior to their electric system design. b. The applicant needs to coordinate the locations of street trees with streetlights. C. The applicant needs to coordinate the transformer locations for the daycare, retail, and c-store facilities with Light & Power. Please contact Janet, at 224-6154, if you have questions about these comments. 18. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, offered the following comments: a. The applicant has used Autumn Purple Ash as a street tree on this project. Since they are not on the City's list of acceptable street trees it will be necessary to change them to another type of street tree (see the attached Street Tree List for an alternative selection). b. The evergreen trees are specified at 1.5" caliper. Evergreen trees .need to be a minimum 6' height, B & B. Please contact Tim, at 221-6361, if you have questions about these comments. 19. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Overall, the plan looks good. b. Can multiple color shades be used on and among the residential buildings? It is implied on the Elevations and that would further break down the scale of large buildings. c. Please see additional comments on red -lined Landscape and Elevations Plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. b. The City would prefer to collect cash or escrow for the local access portion of South Shields Street at this time for future construction of ultimate improvements. C. Is a dedicated right turn lane necessary at Bon Homme Richard Drive? Will this intersection be signalized in the future? . Please contact Matt, at 224-6108, if you have questions about these comments. 13. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Cable Services (formerly TCI of Fort Collins) stated that AT&T Cable Services will not make plans to service this project until a Broadband Utility Easement, also called a Service Agreement, is completed with their Commercial Accounts Executive, Reneta Santoro, who may be reached at 970-419-3106, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 14. A copy of the comments received from Rick Lee of the Building Inspection Department is attached to this comment letter. 15. Representatives of the Mapping/Drafting Department offered the - following comments: a. According to the location of the property on the Vicinity Map it is in Township 6 North and Range 69 West (not 68). The title and the . legal description on the subdivision plat should be changed to reflect this. b. There are bearings and distances missing on the north line of Tract A. C. City regulations require a plat of "new" property to be tied to section control. d. Per Note #2 on the subdivision plat, Tracts A - D will not allow any buildings because the tracts are entirely utility easements, etc. A building envelope or building area may have to be described. e. The property boundary and legal description on the subdivision plat do close. Please contact Jim Hoff, at 221-6588, or Wally Muscott, at 221-6605, if you have questions about their comments. M. The signs on the gas canopy can only be on the sides facing streets (east and west). They cannot be on the north and south sides, as shown [Section 3.8.7(E)(12) of the LUC]. Please contact Jenny, Gary, or Peter, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 7. A copy of the comments received from Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments may be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Sheri, at 221-6750, if you have questions about her comments. 8. A copy of the comments received from Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments may be found on red -lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Basil, at ,224-6035, if you have questions about his comments. 9. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department stated that her comments regarding bicycle/pedestrian connections and enhanced crosswalk locations are on a red -lined Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant. Enterprize Drive needs to be a Commercial Local street (44' roadway width) to provide for traffic, bicycle lanes, and parking. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about her comments. 10. Rick Richter of the Engineering Pavement Department stated that the Soils Report dated June, 1995 will need to be updated. The report was prepared under the City's old standards, and test procedures have changed. The report indicates high swell soils on part of the site. A mitigation plan should be submitted prior to any construction. 11. Transfort stated that they have no transit services in this area at this time and, therefore, have no comments regarding this development proposal. 12. Matt Baker of the Street Oversizing Division of the Engineering Department offered the following comments: a. South Shields Street does not meet the City's current arterial standards. The correct right-of-way dedication must be made. 6. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Please show building heights on Elevations sheets 5 of 7 and 7 of 7. b. Provide a trash enclosure for the retail building. One enclosure for both the c-store and the retail building is probably not enough, especially due to its location. Make the enclosures large enough to accommodate recyclables. C. Provide a trash enclosure for the Daycare Center. d. No trash enclosures are being shown in the multi -family residential area. What is the plan here for trash collection? C. The Parking Data on the Site Plan should be broken down to be more specific: the # of spaces for the c-store, # of spaces for the retail building, and the # of spaces for the Daycare Center. f. Note the height of the fence around the Daycare play area on the Elevations. g. The phasing of the landscaping should be done by lot or by building. Please note as such on the Landscape Plan if this is desired. h. Show the locations of exterior building light fixtures and pole lighting on the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Elevations. i. Will the pedestrian walks in the recreational open space be well lit? Show the lighting plan for that area, as well. j. The gas canopy envelope dimensions must be shown on the Site Plan. k. The proposed wall sign locations for the retail building must be shown on the Elevations. The ID signs for the residential portion of the development (Tract A) can only be located at a driveway entrance into Tract A, not along the streets as shown [Section 3.8.7(C)(1)(f) of the LUC]. 3. A copy of the Thompson School District R2-J Development Impact Report that was received from Kate Browne of the Thompson School District R24 is attached to this comment letter. In summary, this development should not cause district enrollment to exceed service level C (Extended Utilization). Currently, the high schools in the Loveland area are at service level D. This situation will continue until the new high school opens in the fall of 2000. However, this development is not expected to have a major impact on the student enrollment prior to that time. 4. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. The proposed fire lanes between the following buildings exceed 150' in length: Between 1 & 2, 3 & 4, 7 & 8, 9 & 10, 11 & 12, 13 & 14, 15 & 16, 17 & 18. The fire lanes shall not exceed 150' without a turnaround (with a 50' radius) or fire sprinkler the buildings served by the fire lanes. b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on a brown brick are not acceptable). C. This proposal may have a fire sprinkler requirement (see comment a, above). Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Kim Kreimeyer, the City's Natural Resources Planner, offered the following comments: a. No trash enclosures are shown on the plans. Please incorporate recycling into the trash enclosure (see attachment for layout and design for easy accessibility). b. All plans need to show the same storm water pipe layout. C. The grading plan shows drainage, not grading. Please contact Kim, at 221-6641, if you have questions about her comments. Commu y Planning and Environmental' Current Planning City of Fort Collins February 29, 2000 VF Ripley Associates, Inc. c/o Louise Herbert 401 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Dear Louise, -vices Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Registry Ridge PUD, Second Filing - Preliminary & Final that was submitted to the City on January 18, 2000, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company (New Century Energies) offered the following comments: a. All areas outside of the building envelopes must be designated as utility easements. b. Trees must not be planted within 4' of gas lines. C. The driveway areas between Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4.and Buildings 15, 16, 17, 18 are not wide enough for water, sewer, gas, and other utilities that want to use this space. d. In general, gas lines will be in the utility easements adjacent to both sides of all streets and in the driveway areas between all of the buildings. Please contact Jim, at 225-7843, if you have questions about these comments. 2. A copy of the comments received from Terry Farrill of the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Terry, at 226- 3104 - ext. 14, if you have any questions about his comments. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020