HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOLUMBIA ESTATES - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-07-31DATEJ-7-6-v DEPARTMENT
Q
z
LL
„p
io
a
O
Item 51-1-93
Comments
26
2 .
_ J
GL
CITY OF I OR COLLINS P.O BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 (303) 484-4220
PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXT. 652
December 19, 1983
Mr. Carr Bieker
ZVFK ARCHITECTS
218 West Mountain
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Dear Carr:
Staff has reviewed the application for final PUD and subdivision plat approval
of the Columbia Estates PUD and offers the following comments:
1. The applicants should clarify why the land use statistics have changed so
dramatically.
2. All utility easements should be shown on the site plan. An easement must
be 30 feet in width if both a water and sewer line share the same
easement. A ten foot easement will be required on Lemay and Columbia
Street. A fifteen foot setback from sidewalks will be required unless
other arrangements are made with the utilities. Some of the building
setbacks look too close for underground utility installation and main-
tenance.
3. The typical dimension of the building envelopes are not typical for all
the envelopes. Please correct. Also, all building envelopes should be
dimensioned from at least two platted property lines. The footprint
should be indicated as well as the building envelope.
4. "No Parking" signs will need to be posted on the fire lanes. Please note.
5. The garages on the fire lanes should be adjusted to discourage half -in
cars that would block access.
6. The professional office complex will need to be provided with an approved
automatic fire extinguishing system since it is not within 150 feet of a
fire access way.
7. 00 and 900 parking stalls should be dimensioned.
8. Sidewalks from garage to dwelling units should be indicated on the site
plan.
9. The applicants may wish to relocate the trash area in front of the first
unit of building M-1 because of the undesirable view.
Mr. Carr Bieker
From: Joe Frank
December 19, 1983
Page Two
10. The sidewalk. along Lemay Avenue will need to be seven feet in width where
possible.
11. The walk along Columbia Street needs to be only four feet in width.
Oversizing of this sidewalk to 5 feet will not be paid for by the City.
12. The center drive should be dimensioned.
13. Radii of interior curves should be indicated on the site plan.
14. Ditch company approval will be required. I recommend you contact them as
soon as possible.
15. There have been problems with concrete contractors installing the "raise
textured concrete" in parking lots because of long term maintenance
problems. I will work with you on this problem to find possible solu-
tions.
16. Detail of the screening of trash areas should be provided.
17. Detail of the fencing around the pool and the end of the parking drives
should be indicated on the site plan.
18. Detail of interior lighting of parking lots and drives should be indicat-
ed on the site plan. Impact of lighting glare on adjacent properties
should be addressed.
19. Surface treatment of the fire access lane will need to be shown on the
site plan.
20. Some additional ramps at sidewalks should be provided. See me for
details.
21. The minimum distance of building envelope L to the adjacent property line
should be 50 feet rather than 40 feet per the preliminary plan.
22. Site plan should indicate a statement as to the extent of renovation
being done on the church.
23. Staff questions the design of the entrance from Lemay Avenue in terms of
turning of vehicles. Let's discuss this item.
24. The preliminary plan indicated there would be a 10% reduction in overall
energy use for the residential portion of the project. This would roughly
translate into a 20% reduction in space heating over City building codes.
The applicant should provide evidence as to how this savings will be
achieved. The energy conservation measures to be incorporated should be
indicated on the site plan.
25. Updated building elevations should be submitted as soon as possible.
Mr. Carr Bieker
From: Joe Frank
December 19, 1983
Page Three
26. Per Planning and Zoning Board hearing discussion, certain spaces within
the office complex were to be designated and signed for employees. Please
show the location of employee parking and indicate they will be signed.
27. Please clarify what is meant in the note concerning landscape in court-
yard areas being the "responsibility of unit owners".
28. Height of berms should be indicated on the landscape plan.
29. Typical detail of foundation plantings should be provided.
30. Number of plants and minimum size of deciduous shrubs and coniferous
shrubs should be indicated.
31. The Board approved the preliminary plan based on larger than average size
landscaping being provided along the west property line. The landscape
plan is unclear as to how this is being handled. Please clarify on plan.
32. Additional 'landscape comments are forthcoming.
33. Signed mylars of the site plan, landscape plan, building elevations and
subdivision plat should be delivered to this office no later than Monday,
January 16. Also on that date, a signed copy of the Site and Landscape
Covenants should be submitted.
I recommend we meet to discuss the above comments. Revisions to the plans
should be delivered to this office no later than Monday, January 9. On Monday,
January 16, 1984, 82"xll" reductions and colored renderings of all plans
should be submitted. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Joe F ank
Senior;City Planner
JF`:-ro
cc: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
DATE �lt DEPARTMENT tu0c ivaers
ITEM: (�oLorrllow
COMMENTS
Zv'
Z.
DATE 12/5/83 DEPAPTMEN-f.&1-1���
ITEM: COLUMBIA ESTATES PUD - FINAL #54-83e
.. (///./�7� _ ., Yam►'- ��%����� /I
-5,4�,a
m
6-
lb, n A -,a
DATE DEPARTMEN,
_ - r
ITEM: #54-83A COLUMBIA ESTATES PUD - PRELIMINARY
COMMENTS
n
2 . �u lib
J
3.
si�'°�'"
Lj
— a-�- Oki s
CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 (303j484-4220
DEVELOPMENT CENTER EXT. 655
July 1983
Carr Bieker
ZVFK Architects
218 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Carr:
The staff has reviewed the application for preliminary approval of the Columbia
Estates PUD and would offer the following comments:
1. All water and sewer lines should be installed in paved drives and streets
whenever possible. The setbacks of the buildings from sidewalks or other
pavement does not appear adequate for installation of utilities.
2. Access for fire equipment may be a problem in the office portion of the
PUD. Please verify.
3. All existing and proposed fire hydrant locations should be indicated on
the site plan.
4. The private drives should be dimensioned in width including indication
of radii used on curves. R-O-W and pavement widths of surrounding streets
should be indicated.
5. "No Parking" signs will have to be provided along the median in Columbia St.
6. The site plan should indicate the irrigation ditch along Lemay Avenue
and Dartmouth Trail. What treatment is proposed to minimize the dangers
of the irrigation canal to future residents?
7. The site plan should be revised to indicate the following information:
a. Exact building height, rather than 40 feet.
b. Types of office uses.
c. The area surrounding the proposal within 150 feet,exclusive of public
R-O-W, showing land uses, densities of residential uses, existing
trees, and principle structures.
d. Typical dimensions of parking stalls, and aisle widths of private
drives.
8. There are a number of issues that were voiced at the neighborhood meeting
and during subsequent discussions with individual property owners concerning
the compatibility of the project. They included:
Carr Bieker
July 18, 1983
Page 2
a. Provision of fireplaces in the project plus any proposed limitations
on their use. Applicant should address the air quality impacts of
proposed fireplace on adjacent properties.
b. Setbacks of buildings along the west property line; The staff recommends
the applicant maintain setback along the west property line consistant
with what is provided for Buildings Q and T. This setback should include
both buildings, garages, and parking/drives.
c. Architectural treatment of west end of buildings along the west property
line: ThE? applicant indicated at the neighborhood meeting that window
treatment along the west property line would be kept at a minimum in
order to protect the privacy of the rear yards of adjacent single-family
residences. Please provide evidence as to how the current proposal
intends to address this issue. Also, the architectural elevations
appear to indicate single -story units at the end of the buildings.
Please clarify.
d. The location of the major access point to Lemay Avenue and the drive into
the residential portion of the project from this curbcut could negatively
impact the adjoining residential areas in terms of headlights and auto-
mobile noises. The applicant should reevaluate the plan in terms of
eliminating these negative impacts. These same impacts will likely
occur in the cul de sac between Buildings H and Q and along the west
end of Buiilding R. Also, the trash area at the west end of Building R
should be relocated.
e. Landscape treatment along the west property line should be increased
in terms of quantity and size of material used. At least one property
owner is concerned about shading of vegetable gardens along this
perimeter,.
f. The setback of the parking spaces for the office use does not appear to
be adequate. The setbacks should be increased with additional landscape
screening provided.
g. Security lighting should be indicated on the site plan. The applicant
should indicate how glare from security lighting will be prevented from
falling on adjacent residential areas.
h. Several of the residents were concerned about the potential noise impacts
of the pool/bathhouse. Please clarify what measures will be taken to
minimize this impact.
i. Architectural elevations should be submitted which indicate both side,
front, and rear of all buildings including garages. The elevations
should indicate materials and height of buildings.
Carr Bieker
July 18, 1983
Page 3
9. The staff feels the location of parking along Dartmouth Trail is inconsistant
with the streetscape along that street and would recommend the parking be
shifted to the south end of the building.
10. The applicant should provide evidence as to the mitigation measures planned
for the site and building to minimize the noise impacts of Lemay Avenue
from the adjoining residential units.
11. The staff questions the extensive use of double frontage buildings which
the staff feels have resulted in a large portion of the site being devoted
to pavement. The staff would recommend the applicate reevaluate the plan
in terms of eliminating all unnecessary paved areas.
12. The site plan should indicate the measures being proposed to reduce the
overall energy use by the project.
13. The location of many of the parking garages would appear to create sight
distance problems for both cars traveling through the site as well as for
cars exiting the garages. The staff would recommend the applicant review
the location of garages in terms of eliminating sight distance problems.
The staff also has some serious concerns about the garage/service areas in
terms of vehicular circulation.
14. The staff would recommend the applicant reconsider additional, well -located,
active open space areas in the project for use by residents in the project.
15. The applicants should provide evidence that the proposed private patio
areas are of sufficient size and have adequate light, sun, ventilation,
and privacy. The reductions of the proposed treatment of these areas are
unclear.
16. The staff would recommend some additional sidewalk connections within the
site. See me for details.
17. The site plan should indicate proposed design features across parking areas
to enhance their convenience, safety, and amenity.
18. The site plan should indicate typical landscape treatment around the perimeter
of all buildings, including the pool/bathhouse. The reductions showing
typical landscaping as submitted are unclear. Additional street trees are
recommended between the irrigation channel and the sidewalk along Lemay
Avenue and along Columbia Street and Dartmouth Trail.
19. The applicants should submit a completed Density Chart and Point Chart E
for the subject PUD.
20. The applicants should provide a professionally prepared traffic impact study
for the project. The staff has concerns about tre number and location of
curbcuts to Lemay Avenue and the need for a signal at Columbia Street.
Carr Bieker
July 18, 1983
Page 4
I would recommend we meet as soon
I will be on vacation between July
meet with you during that period.
comments should b delivered to me
Monday, August f� 8 1/2 x 11 inch
plans should be submitted. If you
to call.
Sincerely,
Joe Frank
Project Planner
as possible to discuss the above comments.
25 and August 8 and, therefore, unable to
Revision to the plans reflectithe above
no later than Friday, August 1? Also, on
reductions and colored renderings of all
should have any questions, please feel free
cc: Bonnie Tripoli, Utility Plans Examiner
JF/gla