Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGREENFIELD VILLAGE - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-08-06No Text Mike Sollenberger 4 August 25, 1980 size of the site. Many of the above problems might be resolved if the number of units were decreased and/or size of units decreased and/or the size of the site were increased. Before the staff can proceed with processing of the application for development approval, a revised site plan reflecting the above comments will be required. For those items that: cannot be shown on the site plan, a letter from the applicant resolving these issues should be submitted. The above materials should be delivered to this office no later than September 8, 1980. I would urge you to contact me before that deadline to discuss these comments or review your changes before you submit a formal revised site plan. Also, on September 16, a rendered set of the site plan and architectural drawings, and an 8" x 11" PMT positive or good reduction of all site plans and maps must be submitted. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. incere)y, Frank for Planner JF/lg CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580 FORT COLLINS COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-422( PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: 19vZ) /1 c. 4109K.5?�N-� SUBJECT: 6r12eri5ivFIELD tj//jgq'0 �—&-UIcsE'D Your Comments on the original plan were as follows: 3. A"'ta 7 EXT. 652 & ate nm .AZOa eu`- Q,Jk Ah. jo,&A Please review the revised drawing for compliance to these conditions. Please deliver your- comments to this office by V � "- .� tJ.�A urt.C� Q�-E=�l v�l^"- 1�t1.p�c,p-A, ems. c✓ CtLo , 2, Aa� 13. fi.IkL,Q� �iGG�Z`� �. 5�%Q�1 �P--�Li r�r „�-- CaAA- �18,�00 5 - - CPR�5sN FILL- VILLAGy�F Isr. 3t4 ( U nOA �50 f Oki COI I INS COL0RAD080-,22 NII l303) 48-111220 C I7 1' OI I OR I COI I_I NS ..: :,, , ,�w.-,...-.. .,...,,....+�,� �.•.�. ,d^m.^��"." b"•°ex^'"<`-�' ..,,_-.o .,... ,..,..�, EXT. 655 PLANNING DIVISION August 25, 1980 Mike Sollenberger Paragon Development 2000 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mike: The staff has reviewed the preliminary plans for Greenfield Village Filing #2 and would offer the following comments. 1. The information provided on the site plan is incomplete and will require the following additions: a. total area of open space, b. total area of active open space, C. notation of proposed ownership of all streets, d. surrounding area within 150' showing: -- proposed and existing land uses -- densities of residential areas -- lot lines -- existing structures, if any. e. location and dimensions of active open space areas f. extent of total and active open space devoted to; -- natural or improved flood control channels and areas encumbered by flowage, floodway or drainage easements -- total impervious surfaces (paving, roofs, etc.). 2. Building envelopes are not clearly indicated or dimensioned on the site plan. 3. Number of units in each envelope must be clearly indicated. 4. All existing and proposed utility easements must be shown on site plan. The staff would recommend that blanket easements be provided across all areas not encumbered by building envelopes. 5. The City policy is to require pedestrian access to each living unit via a public sidewalk or private path. The plan indicates that the interior units will be provided with a private walkway which traverses the center circle. Secondary access from this "spine" to each of the units should be provided. A sidewalk must be provided on the outer edge of the roadway to service the remaining units. Mi;:e Sollenberger 2 August 25, 1980 6. A minimum 20' setback from the outside edge of the sidewalk to the garage is required. 7. The plan should provide for an additional pedestrian path from the pool area to the units on the south. 8. The "future pedestrian way" does not appear to link up with the walkway in Phase I. Please correct. 9. The design detail provided for the future pedestrian way is insufficient. The design and landscaping of this path must be tied down with this phase, with construction tied to an appropriate future date. 10. Where major pedestrian street crossings are anticipated, the plan should incorporate paving patterns, landscaping, grade differences, or other design features to enhance pedestrian convenience, amenity and safety. 11. The City policy is not to accept or approve private streets. The proposed design of the interior vehicular circulation system will function as a street and should be dedicated and constructed to local public street standards. 12. The note "two parking spaces per unit in driveway" on the site plan cannot be counted toward the off-street parking requirement and should be deleted from the site plan data. 13. 28' streets are allowed only with parking on one side. The applicant will be responsible for erection and cost of all signs. 14. Country Place Drive was designated on the master plan as a collector street and should be designed and dedicated with a 44' pavement width and 80' right-of- way width. The reverse curve as shown trs to��on lict �ttL4ity standards. 15. A temporary turn around will be required on the norti end of Country Place Drive (80' diameter). 16. The siting of structures and landscaping should recognize the objective of providing audio and visual privacy between pool area and adjacent residential units. 17. The staff would recommend that the applicant provide for a greater variety of architectural treatment in duplex units so as to avoid a monotonous streetscape. 18.Horsetooth Road is anticipated to carry a heavy load of automobile and truck traffic. The proposed buffering treatment is insufficient to mitigate the noise, odor, aesthetic and safety conflicts that will arise. The proposed "6' high privacy fence" is not a desirable solution. The applicant should provide evidence as to how these conflicts will be mitigated in the development plan. Also, additional screening will be required between collector street and dwelling units. Mike Sollenberger 3 August 25, 1980 19. The site plan does not adequately address the scale, privacy and aesthetic conflicts that will arise between the proposed duplex units and adjacent single family development (Phase I). The staff would recommend that rear setback of the duplex units be increased and/or additional landscape screening be provided. 20. The plan is very weak in its integration with the design objectives of the adjacent single family development, in terms of landscaping and open space buffering along Horsetooth Road. 21. The active open space area is poorly located relative to the rest of the 38 duplex units. Access to this site is very weak. The master plan indicates that in later phases that this active open space will be enlarged which should relieve, to an extent, the location issue. However, the plan should be reevaluated in terms of providing more accessible and visual pedestrian access to this active open space area. 22. The proposed 6' fence along Horsetooth Road will create both safety and aesthetic problems. 23. The proposed 5' corner side yard setbacks are unacceptable. A minimum 15' setback is recommended. 24. The master plan shows a major pedestrian linkage between the recreational facility and the interior path system. The staff feels that the proposed site design does not adequately address this concept. The plan should be reevaluated in terms of providing a stronger pedestrian link between these areas. 25. The landscape plan should be reevaluated in terms of energy conservation, for instance, use of landscape screening and berming along north sides of buildings for winter wind protection and shade trees along south side for unwanted summer sun protection. 26. The building elevations indicate shake shingle roofs. The Fire Department is very concerned about the fire problems that can arise in this type of development using shake roofs. The staff would recommend that either a composite type roof or a fire -retardant shake shingle be utilized. 27. Storm drainage for this filing must comply with the overall master plan, Fox Meadows and/or Foothills drainage basin study. Irregardless, the storm drainage plan for this site must stand on its own. 28. Temporary fire hydrants or blow -off will be required at dead ends by the Public Works Department. 29. Repay on 16" water line in Horsetooth Road will be required. 30. The staff has carefully reviewed this plan and feels that many of the above comments are a result of the number and scale of the units versus the Mike Sollenberger 4 August 25, 1980 size of the site. Many of the above problems might be resolved if the number of units were decreased and/or size of units decreased and/or the size of the site were increased. Before the staff can proceed with processing of the application for development approval, a revised site plan reflecting the above comments will be required. For those items that cannot be shown on the site plan, a letter from the applicant resolving these issues should be submitted. The above materials should be delivered to this office no later than September 8, 1980. 1 would urge you to contact me before that deadline to discuss these comments or review your changes before you submit a formal revised site plan. Also, on September 16, a rendered set of the site plan and architectural drawings, and an 8" x 11" PMT positive or good reduction of all site plans and maps must be submitted. [f you have any questions, please feel free to call me. 'Sincerely Joe Frank Senior Planner JF/lg c� C'' �Un�//u���uctJ+ �o//�N�s fJ1-CClif - �s.C// EJ Tovy G�YWe 6� orms'�.°�'� adz �e u/I ,Q) �P'/$cz2�ol �i fp d�%-�• rTrt '�lC>rJrn��^.P�c� 1 ^� � /Jk. © =�h�a�e� �i�rcuccs 14c L cv<p .ice NNW �,a^ter a:t *-:-�J ✓ 1 U DATE DEPARTMENT ITEM:* COMMENTS ,4 �,c. u �4JNCt �2� ( �Z M�€TiNG �ce� Fa2 fo-Z97� 79 cCIE-P-4FIEtc ViLLAce �u.b. 1 �AsrE2 {�c en1 �c)ESTiafV Gryl ct�///'.,�ls !a evrnm f Aurnn.� fo /�m�stiucE �//ec�a/ S� Guiw� �i.d �tve%er� S/slvs YJc'�r� �� �/d Cc�7-/r, L,uf.✓ 1 �/ 2N1> siec�sr dam R i.ucr� F.�,,,t,�� -fn d) No e) eceloFer d,d Y1ef resp,-Ad t cue-e-IrA& Jr� A/11rf� 79 6// fe IT76 -798 CF.bA A, VlLc4cE 6 r,f /z�-/L/nNc 6) lxlha w/i� zt o��� l (�'s27)e. 41 c4a,"A'7Q, dr,F`cs ae.,7o, � C/�� zj,, _) Si,Z4e fiM /l701/ C970'e /�i Z" OS7- //d ie s/, n 4 ��. i� p leY Ir r , J CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLI PLANNING DIVISION June 24, 1981 Mr. Eldon Ward ZVFK Architects/Planners 218 West Mountain Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Eldon: The staff has reviewed the application for preliminary plan approval of the Greenfield Village F rrst Phase PLL and would offer the following staff eva ua ion as to e pr5ject's success or failure to address the applicable criteria within the Land Development Guidance System. ALL DEVELOPMENT - NUMBERED CRITERIA 1. The buildings must be set back from rear of sidewalks (or rear of curbs where sidewalks do not exist) a minimum of 15-feet for utility purposes. The open space areas should be designated as utility easements. 2. Horsetooth Road between east edge of site to Timberline Road shall be constructed with the first phase of development. The site plan should indicate this improvement and road be a part of this plan. 3. The staff would recommend that grouping of compact cars as indicated on the site plan be avoided, and rather that they be evenly distributed throughout. the site. 4. The parking should be maintained at least 50-feet back from the flowlines of abutting public streets. Please revise. 5. Planning objectives should be submitted as part of this application, addressing the points contained within the PUD regulations. 6. The site plan should be on 24" x 36" sheets. 7. The plan should include proposed lot line. 484-4220 EXT. 655 8. The required parking is 185 spaces, not 183 as indicated on the site plan. 9. The site plan should include a note that the first stories of all structures will be within 150-feet of the access roadway for these units. Mr. Eldon Ward ZVFK Architects/Planners June 24, 1981 Page Two 10. The site plan should include a note indicating the number of units for low income families and handicapped units (including number of Type A or Type B units per PUD regulations). 11. Per Section 118-83 J. (4), certain guarantees concerning housing for low income families must be met. Please review this section. 12. The buffer treatment between Horsetooth Road and the residential units does not appear adequate. Has HUD reviewed and approved this treatment? Applicant should provide evidence to justify the plan design. 13. Will the landscaping that is indicated in the "greenbelt" area be provided with this phase? 14. Shade trees should be provided along Horsetooth Road at a minimum interval of every 50-feet. 15. The final landscape plan should include landscaping treatment adjacent to buildings. Plan should note this. 16. Landscape screening should be provided at end of parking lot located at south entrance to shield car lights into Building C. 17. Final landscape plan should include low lying bushes as well as trees in parking islands. 18. Final landscape plan should utilize varieties of trees with high levels of winter sun penetration for those located on south sides of buildings. 19. Two handicapped parking spaces would not appear adequate if a number of dwellings are designated for handicapped persons. Also, what rationale was used for their location? Please provide evidence to justify the plan design. 20. Typical parking stall and aisle dimensions should be indicated. 21. The temporary access road will be required, not "if." It does not appear that a fire truck will be able to make the turn as indicated. Please verify. 22. Please indicate proposed treatment of hatched areas in parking lots. 23. A list of' abutting property owners and their addresses within 500-feet of the project should be submitted as soon as possible. 24. Site plan should indicate date of preparation. Mr. Eldon Ward ZVFK Architects/Planners June 24, 1982 Page Three ALL DEVELOPMENT - VARIABLE CRITERIA 25. The staff evaluation is that the site plan as submitted scores 51% of the applicable criteria (see Point Chart A attached). DENSITY CHART 26. Applicant should provide evidence to justify 5% energy savings. 27. Evidence should be submitted to justify credit under Criteria Q and R. 28. In accordance with the staff evaluation, no Quality Bonus Credit is earned. Overall, the project scores 51% of the applicable lettered criteria and has failed 7 absolute criteria. The proposed density is consistent with the PLO criteria. I would recommend that we meet as soon as possible to discuss the above evaluation. Any revisions to the site plan must be received by this office no later than Wednesday, July 8, 1981. Also, on Monday July 20, 1981, 8-1/2" x 11" reductions of all site plans and colored renderings of site plans must be submitted. If you should have any questions please feel free to call. Sincerely, Joe Frank Senior Planner JF/fsr cc: Curt Smith Josh Richardson DATE 1/ DEPARTMENTS/N��� ITEM: 0-1d I/i /lave /�G z1v rJ vv11�113 .f ���� COMMENTS 7//6 I.n/�S - �o�� ii✓Cu P4LL,, c Aa�H - GC>�nrr 3&' Z'—l"11F47 � fTC- /3,7rfS ',GHT R<FRJ/ND 51DEXIAI' ul iL� �S7 3Y7CL� 7G -=NS7N CC DUE To �G/,✓G Z/.0 De �' �A,eG N( LT �C� r NEED b COM/91ii�J /�J2 7-4-IUAL 295(44) sPf- b ccL; i5F44tut5 WAIF . CIT'I OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FOR PLANNING DIVISION July 13, 1981 Mr. Eldon Ward ZVFK Architects/Planners 218 W. Mountain Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Dear Eldon: EXT. 655 On Friday, July 10, 1981, the City of Fort Collins Utility Coordinating Committee met to discuss the Greenf�iel�d Village First Phase Preliminary PUD plan and resolved the following: 1. Water lines will be looped through the parking area. Stop boxes will be located behind the sidewalks. 2. Blanket easement across site for utility purposes will be required. 3. The site will require between 7-10 electrical transformers (above -ground). Applicant should coordinate landscaping with transformers' locations. Landscaping needs to be committed after electrical design. 4. If project will utilize natural gas, 15-foot setback from back of curb or sidewalk and buildings will be required. If no gas use is intended, 10-foot setback will be acceptable. If all utilities are in street, a minimum of 4-foot setback will be required. However, applicant will bear additional cost of placing utilities in street. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Joe Frank Senior Planner JF/fsr cc: Mauri Rupel Curt Smith V� E 0 M C -� jtofv1 419l-,79 &ree,q f e& �J llaL e Final A�se. / r s ti2e� u �sT i�� A `u �A,SC'N^C-,•ITS ` AD�cP-�'�T `T� �ZYZzeq- iZ�C��Fi 0y- �eeT VJ�p E CAA Cb4P 2 ROECDVED DEC 2 7 1979 Plan ning Department O A, A On1 4 iq/- 7q / (7�ee��eld �i��CtGJ� AA -Se l F1'no,Q_ Comments a�tc�cl �n (02 oi75/��r/. CQn no� �vc7JE' czS �S%7ouJ/� eon Ae� o „ /-//JODAA D In CJ►G S ��/1 i��aJl., aoo� �'..",p�i� Cb� -� •sue , (� t o -8��,.,kQA z�� n j Zve,,e. Lo,.�c+✓T� 8�8/80 �rb7K / P,',e-4A6gr yZ /. SNew ,Oi�Jm'�./✓ies/f Ape GtJ. .?, PL.eT /✓E�r%/ >a NAME -r1 & A1A7V eC i3Gae c'J 3, )V6e.re roorN eo cu.ec. 13E ea"4,�Oc-err2> w-Im �.t �.�•,•4 7a 77�rJ6E�Cci. /6 .eo. SF N07- eom/~LEr� Fia1T BY AND 7e"f o /3L.G4.iJ0 � �IP AL'ce?P7Wj3LC M !ys'S f�A�-L Br /�•«Y/�di� A T 0 &7/o/ S W..¢ r&--,r2 1:71-4•1 1No u�1 l'C'o, u�.o�rC u�.eYJ 7v rO'`t' 1,1091 Y o.' 7111/ TF sar � TviJ �f'G/.va .5.,�+u� eTt �rGe. 4.e'.�w..✓G/ lo. _<TMjC r1 4-,)2A.1446d TsT%J �ic..•rG �urT ev,w�oGa: !! lw pygL,O[t pC7Cd�Gc�/N�/T �,l/atftl.G PL/}.J/ Fo-X 7�c-�Dawl A,40AA coo TJ•//c e,- D�AiN.466 da1'..✓ .Srz/pY�BC7ic� ,BF 4j;r ,ep0,pa,4sA;- 7a sTrw vAAa ayt /Tf drvn/ /rlE�.7y �J F4.G 4J- DZ 4 i,rAaa- /.l e o ve &vewew. C,ot •-D%.ac Lu/Gc /3d .�°�T%U�,Q� �� ��'/ac-c o�.+i.o-tr7VOl .o.4ns xw.-x Nevv .ae-rAye-� Ld6 c.9•t! eNECC ff.7�" erT U4 y&,vr �•e Aec�a.' BciTy. 3, A L.L. B 2 ivs ra $E oSi!/ou� �1 w.<A••.o G6S��.v� 4N 4177 L / T7N3- li2.aw/AO&f. CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO80522 PH (303) 481-3220 PLANNING DIVISION EXT. 655 August 25, 1980 Mike Sollenberger Paragon Development 2000 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Mike: The staff has reviewed the preliminary plans for Greenfield Village Filing #2 and would offer the following comments. 1. The information provided on the site plan is incomplete and will require the following additions: a. total area of open space, b. total area of active open space, C. notation of proposed ownership of all streets, d. surrounding area within 150' showing: -- proposed and existing land uses -- densities of residential areas -- lot lines -- existing structures, if any. e. location and dimensions of active open space areas f. extent of total and active open space devoted to: -- natural or improved flood control channels and areas encumbered by flowage, floodway or drainage easements -- total impervious surfaces (paving, roofs, etc.). 2. Building envelopes are not clearly indicated or dimensioned on the site plan. 3. Number of units in each envelope must be clearly indicated. 4. All existing and proposed utility easements must be shown on site plan. The staff would recommend that blanket easements be provided across all areas not encumbered by building envelopes. 5. The City policy is to require pedestrian access to each living unit via a public sidewalk or private path. The plan indicates that the interior units will be provided with a private walkway which traverses the center circle. Secondary access from this "spine" to each of the units should be provided. A sidewalk must be provided on the outer edge of the roadway to service the remaining units. dike Sollenberger 2 August 25, 1980 6. A minimum 19' setback from the outside edge of the sidewalk to the garage is required. 7. The plan should provide for an additional pedestrian path from the pool area to the units on the south. B. The "future pedestrian way" does not appear to link up with the walkway in Phase I. Please correct. 9. The design detail provided for the "future pedestrian way" is insufficient. The design and landscaping of this path must be tied down with this phase, with construction tied to an appropriate future date. 10. Where major pedestrian street crossings are anticipated, the plan should incorporate paving patterns, landscaping, grade differences, or other design features to enhance pedestrian convenience, amenity and safety. 11. The City policy is not to accept or approve private streets. The proposed design of the interior vehicular circulation system will function as a street and should be dedicated and constructed to local public street standards. 12. The note "two parking spaces per unit in driveway" on the site plan cannot be counted toward the off-street parking requirement and should be deleted from the site plan data. 13. 28' streets are allowed only with parking on one side. The applicant will be responsible for erection and cost of all signs. 14. Country Place Drive was designated on the master plan as a collector street and should be designed and dedicated to those standards. The reverse curve as shown appears to conflict with City standards. 15. A temporary turn around will be required on the north end of Country Place Drive (80' diameter). 16. The siting of structures and landscaping should recognize the objective of providing audio and visual privacy between pool area and adjacent residential units. 17. The staff would recommend that the applicant provide for a greater variety of architectural; treatment in duplex units so as to avoid a monotonous streetscape. 18.Horsetoo6 Road is anticipated to carry a heavy load of automobile and truck traffic. The proposed buffering treatment is insufficient to mitigate the noise, odor, aesthetic and safety conflicts that will arise. The proposed 6 high privacy fence" is not a desirable solution. The applicant should provide evidence as to how these conflicts will be mitigated in the development plan. Also, additional screening will be required between collector street and dwelling units. Mike Sollenberger 3 August 25, 1980 19. The site plan does not adequately address the scale, privacy and aesthetic conflicts that will arise between the proposed duplex units and adjacent single family development (Phase I). The staff would recommend that rear setback of the duplex units be increased and/or additional landscape screening be provided. 20. The plan is very weak in its integration with the design objectives of the adjacent single family development, in terms of landscaping and open space buffering along Horsetooth Road. 21. The active open space area is poorly located relative to the rest of the 38 duplex units. Access to this site is very weak. The master plan indicates that in later phases that this active open space will be enlarged which should relieve, to an extent, the location issue. However, the plan should be reevaluated in terms of providing more accessible and visual pedestrian access to this active open space area. 22. The proposed 6' fence along Horsetooth Road will create both safety and aesthetic problems. 23. The proposed 5' corner side yard setbacks are unacceptable. A minimum 15' setback is recommended. 24. The master plan shows a major pedestrian linkage between the recreational facility and the interior path system. The staff feels that the proposed site design does not adequately address this concept. The plan should be reevaluated in terms of providing a stronger pedestrian link between these areas. 25. The landscape plan should be reevaluated in terms of energy conservation, for instance, use of landscape screening and berming along north sides of buildings for winter wind protection and shade trees along south side for unwanted summer sun protection. 26. The building elevations indicate shake shingle roofs. The Fire Department is very concerned about the fire problems that can arise in this type of development using shake roofs. The staff would recommend that either a composite type roof or a fire -retardant shake shingle be utilized. 27. Storm drainage for this filing must comply with the overall master plan, Fox Meadows and/or Foothills drainage basin study. Irregardless, the storm drainage plan for this site must stand on its own. 28. Temporary fire hydrants or blow -off will be required at dead ends by the Public Works Department. 29. Repay on 16" water line in Horsetooth Road will be required. 30. The staff has carefully reviewed this plan and feels that many of the above comments are a result of the number and scale of the units versus the