HomeMy WebLinkAboutANHEUSER-BUSCH INC - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-05-27ATEDECEMBEF; 8, i�83 DEPARTMEA7
FOEM, 9 #86-83A/86-83B - ANHEUSER-BUSCH MASTER PLAN, PLREIMINARY AND FINAL PUD
�UPC.[C� �J%.�1�-�%� � - � �Lr7' Gv�G�' I1�%?� �J ���• ��%in//ttGf%yyr
x,
5177
........rr«.w.`a...r.srvwwwu..ww - �.tia �ad��#FksM.id4'ir�°u!iktnti4dFA+Cra. �'`'N.�'adJ�'Yc.6w.nrrMZ`.�°���1P1�'•: "�
CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 (303)484-4220
PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT EXT.652
December 15, 1983
Mr. Len Mooradian
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC.
1 Busch Place
St. Louis, Missouri 63118
Mr. John Martz
Executive Assistant to Vice -President
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC.
1 Busch Place
St. Louis, Missouri 63118
Gentlemen:
Staff has reviewed the materials submitted to the City of Fort Collins for
Master Plan and Preliminary and Final PUD approval of the Anheuser-Busch
project and has the following comments. I recommend we meet as soon as
possible to discuss these comments. If you have any questions regarding the
comments or need further clarification, please contact me. I will find the
answer or arrange a meeting with the appropriate staff persons. Revisions to
the plan documents reflecting these comments should be submitted no later than
Friday, January 6, 1984.
Master Plan
1. A "superblock" plan process for the Master Plan area will be required.
The "superblock" areas should be shown on sheet 1 of the Master Plan
including a definition of the elements and process for plan review of
these plans. I have attached a draft of the elements and a suggested
review procedure for discussion.
2. Staff has reviewed the "Master Plan Planning Objectives" document and has
the following comments:
a. Graphic 3. Some of the soil types for two areas appear to be missing
from this graphic. It would also be helpful if some brief analysis
was provided regarding the suitability of the soil classes identified
in terms of future urban development rather than referencing the
reader to the SCS Soil Survey report.
Len Mooradian
From: Joe Frank
December 15, 1983
Page Two
b. Pages 114-21. Many of the "policies" identified do not appear to be
from the City's adopted plans. Please use our adopted Land Use
Policies Plan and Goals and Objectives in this section.
c. Page 14, 2nd policy statement. It is mentioned truck traffic will be
directed to certain points on certain roads. How will this be
insured?
d. Page 23. Staff questions the figures provided for future breakdown of
open space, building coverage, impervious surface and maximum floor
area. I suggest additional information be provided showing the basis
and appropriateness of these figures in the Fort Collins environment.
e. Page 26. The rationale for locating specific land uses in the Master
Plan, for instance, multiple family, auto -related commercial, etc.,
should be more clearly specified.
f. Page 26), final paragraph. There is some confusion whether temporary
housing will be provided. Please clarify.
g. Page 27 - "Parks & Open Space". According to the City's hierarchy of
parks the 20-acre park will be a "neighborhood park" rather than a
"community park". Please correct.
h. Page 29. Staff suggests the "Neighborhood Commercial/Office" area be
termed "Neighborhood Service Center" which is consistent with the
terminology of the Land Use Policies Plan and the Land Development
Guidance System. "Convenience -Grocery Shopping" should also be
revised to read "Supermarket -Grocery Shopping", again being con-
sistent with these documents. "Neighborhood Convenience Centers" are
not normally found in the neighborhood centers as envisioned in the
Land Use Policies Plan and Land Development Guidance System because
of—te- presence of a grocery store anchor an t e�i refore, staff
recommends it be deleted from the list of land uses.
i. Page 30. The list of permitted uses under Industrial should clarify
what is meant by "amusement and recreation facilities". For instance,
does it include an amusement park?
j. Page 31. Churches may be included as a permitted use in the residen-
tial areas.
k. Pages 33-34. The concept of "superblocks" should be discussed in this
section including the plan elements and process.
1. Page 34. Mention should be made under the discussion of the 40-foot
industrial local that internal bike and pedestrian facilities will be
provided within the site to provide connections between properties
and between the industrial properties and adjacent commercial and
residential areas. For purposes of clarification "industrial collec-
tor" should be revised to "local industrial".
m. Page 34. The references to arterial street standards should be
deleted.
Len Mooradian
From: Joe Frank:
December 15,1983
Page Three
3. The Parks and Recreation Department has stated the location of the
proposed park site on the Master Plan is acceptable. Staff is currently
negotiating another park site with the owners of property immediately
west of the Windsor Canal. For a combined use of detention and park
land, staff would require at least 20 acres of the park be outside the
100-year storm water detention requirement. This detention requirement
should be noted on the master site plan and in the Planning Objectives.
4. The arrows indicating access points to arterial streets should be deleted
from the plan. Locations of major collector streets and major access
points will be determined in the "superblock" plans. Also, note number 3
of sheet 1 of the Master Plan is not necessary.
5. Staff perceives County Road 50 will serve as a major gateway to the
community and development along that road should be designed to maximize
its visual integrity. Harmony Road has also been identified as a gateway
and appropriate treatment provided as adjacent properties develop. Staff
recommends the applicant provide some indication in the Planning
Objectives and on the Master Plan as to how this area will be treated to
enhance its appearance as a "gateway".
6. The Master Plan should show the area surrounding the property including a
survey of -the area within 150 feet of the proposal indicating land uses.
7. Proposed building heights should be indicated on the site plan.
8. Signature boxes for the owners, attorney certification, and Planning and
Zoning Board should be indicated on the Master Plan. All owners of
property within the Master Plan must sign the document. If there are
owners who will not sign the Master Plan, other arrangements must be
made. Signed mylars of the Master Plan will be needed prior to the
hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board on January 24, 1984.
Preliminary and Final PUD Plan
9. The City, in an effort to make efficient use of parking lots, has adopte�
a slightly smaller size parking stall for employee parking. For 90
parking, the dimensions would be 8.5'xl8' with a 24' aisle. This
dimension parking would be appropriate for employee parking in this
project, if you so desire.
10. Will motorcycle and bicycle parking be provided for employees? Please
indicate location on site plan.
11. The layout of the hospitality parking lot should be indicated on the site
plan.
12. In order to channelize traffic at the brewery entrance, staff recommends
lane striping or smaller curve radii be provided. Staff will work with
you to resolve this situation.
Len Mooradian
From: Joe Frank
December 15, 1983
Page Four
13. The flow of automobiles in and out of the 390-space parking lot could be
improved by shifting the parking lot approximately 10 feet to the east,
thereby aligning the entrance with the second parking aisle.
14. Preliminary design plans of County Road 52 and the Frontage Road indicate
the 52/Frontage Road intersection may shift approximately 150 feet to the
west. In this case the frontage road may shift to the south coming no
closer than 100 feet to the Hospitality Building. The final location of
the frontage road will be determined at the time final plans are
prepared. The location of the frontage road as indicated on the site plan
does not have to be adjusted at this time.
15. The traffic study should be supplemented by an analysis of the impact of
truck traffic from the site to Laramie, Wyoming.
16. The applicant should work with staff to develop traffic information on
the direction of traffic to and from the Master Plan and brewery site and
the change in traffic volume on surrounding streets as a result of the
project.
17. The building envelope should be dimensioned on the site plan. The
building envelope should also be dimensioned from at least two platted
property lines.
18. The site plan indicates a 7-foot chain link security fence. Will there be
barbed wire? If so, please provide specifications for the design of the
fence.
19. The Planning and Zoning Board will need an impact study of the proposed
building height. A shadow analysis has been submitted by EDAW. The PUD
Planning Objectives should include a written analysis of the impact of
the building height on community scale, views, light and shadow, privacy,
and neighborhood scale. Staff has some questions regarding the photo-
graphs submitted for the view analysis. Please refer to the section of
the City's Development Manual entitled "Special review of building with
height over 40-feet" (page 55) for details.
20. The building elevations should indicate exterior materials and colors.
There is some question whether the model indicated the true color of the
building. Please clarify.
21. Comments regarding the landscape plan are forthcoming.
22. A meeting was held at Ward Fischer's office December 14, 1983, to discuss
the details of storm drainage. Contact Mauri Rupel for details.
23. Sheet H should be amended to include the following information:
Len Mooradian
From: Joe Frank.
December 15, 1963
Page Five
a. Land use statistics.
1) Parcel size.
2) Total floor area.
3) Proposed coverage of building, driveways and parking, public
street ROW, open space, and landscaped area.
4) Total number of guest, handicapped, bicycle and motorcycle park-
ing.
5) Maximum building height.
b. Location of municipal boundaries at the development.
c. Proposed zoning.
d. Land uses surrounding the proposed PUD within 150 feet of the bound-
ary of the project.
e. Vicinity map.
f. Owners' certification block, attorneys' certification block, and
Planning and Zoning Board certification block.
g. The title should be "Preliminary and Final PUD Site Plan".
24. Signed mylars of the subdivision plat, site plan (four sheets), landscape
plan, and building elevations will be needed prior to the hearing by the
Planning and Zoning Board. A signed copy of the Site and Landscape
Covenants (attached) must be submitted at that time.
25. We should meet to discuss the form and preparation of a public presenta-
tion document to be used for general public distribution.
26. The Colorado Division of Highways District IV has reviewed the proposal
and offered the following comments:
a. The construction of the interchange is not a certainty at this time.
The following still needs approval by FHWA:
1) The environmental assessment.
2) The finding of no significant impact.
3) The I-25 access.
b. The agreement between Anheuser-Busch and the Colorado Division of
Wildlife has not been finalized.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
,Joe J. Frank
(Senior City Planner
cc: Mauri Rupel, Development Center Director
Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development
Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
Jack Stein
Larry Storm
/ DIVISION OF HIGHWA'
P.O Box 850
Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850
(303) 353-1232
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
P. 0. Box 580
5TATF OF COLOKADO
December 15, 1983°'
P
QrC 1 SJLJ
Larimer Coun
I-25
Anheuser-Bus
Master Plan
W. of I-25 a
County Road
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 DOH FILE 451
Gentlemen:
The Colorado Division of Highways' District IV has reviewed the Anheuser-Busch
Master Plan, Preliminary and Final P.U.D., and "Traffic Impact Report Anheuser-
Busch Brewery in Fort Collins, Colorado." Our comments fall into two major
areas of concern: Master Plan Planning Objectives and Traffic Impact Report.
1. Master Flan Planning Objectives
This Master Plan is based on the assumption that a County Road 50/I-25
Interchange will be built. At this time, construction of this interchange
is not a. certainty. The following still need approval by FHWA: -(1) the
Environmental Assessment, (2) the Finding of No Significant Impact, and
(3) the I-25 access_ Also, the agreement between Anheuser-Busch and the
Colorado Division of Wildlife has not been finalized.
The population and employment projections for the year 2010 Master Plan
area indicate an approximate 250% increase over the values which were
modeled in the County Road 50 and I-25 Interchange Feasibility Study and
in the Environmental Assessment. Therefore, the area road system, includ-
ing the potential interchange at County Road 50, will experience a sig-
nificant: traffic increase which is not reflected in the current planning
efforts to the year 2000.
The section on "Conceptual Drainage" does indicate that on -site measures
will be provided to control the release of stormwater. It should also
be noted that the impact of drainage from the Boxelder Creek Basin is
currently being evaluated in relation to an interchange at County Road 50.
We encourage the coordination of these drainage studies so that the ulti-
mate drainage plans will be compatible. We would appreciate a copy of
the detailed drainage report cited as reference document A.
2. Traffic Impact Report
The traffic report which we have received
traffic associated with the brewery only.
cater that there is also a traffic report
document B. We would also like to review
traffic impact of this development is of
with this referral addresses
The Master Plan report indi-
for the entire P.U.D., reference
this report, since the total
interest to us.
FT. COLLINS PLANNING DEPT.
December 15, 1983
Page Two
Anheuser-Bust
DOH FILE 4511
Without having the Master Plan Traffic Report, it is not possible for
us to evaluate the overall impact of this development on the I-25 frontage
road intersection at County Road 50 or the potential interchange itself.
In general, total peak -hour traffic should be studied to determine whether
the distance between the interchange ramp terminals and the frontage road
intersection will be sufficient. This information could affect the inter-
section design of the "frontage road" west of I-25 between County Roads 50
and 52 which, if built, will become part of the Fort Collins Street System.
Addendum #1 refers to a signing Rrogram to direct traffic to the proper
access routes. It should be understood that signs on highway right of
way must meet strict criteria. Special signs for private businesses are
not normally allowed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this major project.
Very truly yours,
ALBERT CHOTVACS
DISTRICT ENGINEER
Vbu§17rs Rames
Assist nt District Engineer
DDR:da
cc: A. Chotvacs
D. Yost
Area Foreman
File: Reisbeck-Crier-Jacobson
w/encl.
�''^
#-.. :i��}}tY.,,..�� .frvK.. g„f, S%!'�Cy.r4Yvu.�.yr ..-.i .Y� -jt•-' .:�' 'a'�`{`.r h'X. t,. �♦ .f,. 't 7.{,7 M
,a .krdaY ^FS "s'
��! i.h,r,1r1 Y:'a � f � '�.r a. i� t:y �. ..v+ 5.3 ,-ter.' .a �, r ✓^. � ,.. r '� r4 -k.t
� .—r. - ad31i$1�'++Ks'7fl�at�a�"�'w .+-'��., ^a:..�1,�.i1�°b.�r--��.�+- ,?_ ar +�s.c�✓€t, ` taF' ,�AvY�i— is ��s�:rF3ia'Y . 7� _ - -•,-al �
OF F0K I C_L1,P 0� Box 580 Fort Collins, C v:-rado 8052� Phone 484-422J Fx -23
-
ENGINEERING SERVICES
October 29, 1982
Mr. Len Mooradian
Project Executive
Corporate Engineering
One Busch Place
St. Louis, MO 63118
Dear Mr. Mooradian:
RE; s
Per our conversation on October 21, 1982, in regard to stormwater manage-
ment, I would offer the following additional comments and discussion.
ISSUE FOR DECISION
Both the City and the Company want to find the best alternative for man-
aging storm drainage that is least costly and has the least impact to
properties on or off the site. The task is to develop a procedure for
identifying that best alternative. This may require some negotiation since
the goals of the City and the Company may not coincide.
PROCFDURF
We believe the following sequence of actions will lead to a decision on the
best alternative.
1. Re -analyze the hydrology of the Cooper -Slough Basin
The present master plan was prepared prior to the knowledge that the
Company was interested in this site. That plan assumed the land would
develop ultimately as residential lots greater than 2 acres in size. The
proposed industrial development of 1130+ acres (including the brewery site
of 160+ acres) will change the volume and rate of runoff greatly. The size
and locations of improvements needed may also change. A re -analysis of the
drainage characteristics of the company's site and the potential impacts on
the downstream channel should be made as soon as possible. This analysis
should be performed on the entire company site with a sub -section on the
brewery location specifically. This task can be performed by your consul-
tant. Attached is a draft Scope of Work to perform the necessary inves-
tigations.
2• Reconsider improvements proposed in the present master plan and eval-
uate any new alternatives proposed or discovered.
a) Based upon the revised hydrology prepared in Item 1, the improve-
ments proposed in the existing master plan can be examined to see
if they, need to be changed.
f
t
Mr. Len Mooradian
October 29, 1982
Page Two
b) The City and the Company need to define any goals or constraints
that either eliminate some alternatives or suggest new alterna-
tives. An example may be that the Company does not want any
detention ponds on the brewery site.
c) New alternatives can be developed to handle the stormwater and the
cost of these alternatives can be determined.
Your consulting engineer can perform a and c. The City and the Company
must develop b.
3. Determine the best alternatives and incorporate them into a revised
Faster p an for the Basin as a whole.
The consultant: can recommend one or more alternatives but the City and the
Company may have to negotiate an agreement if their goals are not com-
patible. The best alternative may turn out to be improvements totally off
the site, totally on the site, or some combination thereof.
4. Design improvements needed -to serve the basin and the Company.
Once a decision has been made on a master plan of improvements, then a
consultant can design those specific improvements needed. At this point
the consultant could be hired either by the City or by the Company.
FINANCING
The City's storrrr?iater management policy is that any capital improvements
within a basin are ultimately paid for by the properties in the basin to
the extent they contribute to the stormwater runoff in the basin. Nor-
mally, a fee structure is established for each basin such that bonds can be
issued for the cost to construct improvements. The fees pay off the bonds
over time.
The total magnitude of costs and any potential fees cannot be accurately
defined until the best alternative is chosen.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Larimer and Weld Canal: The City staff does not share your optimism on
coming to an accomodation with the canal company. This is based upon our
past experiences and on the growing awareness of the irrigation companies
of their potential liabilities for damage if they accept stormwater runoff
Mr. Len Mooradian
October 29, 1982
Page Three
over and above some vaguely defined "historic" flows. We suggest that some
preliminary investigation and contacts be made through your hydrologic
consultant or through Ward Fischer if he is agreeable. An initial contact
by the City may have an undesirable result.
Timing: It is our best guess that to accomplish items 1 through 4 under
PROCEDURE will require 3 to 6 months. This effort should coincide with
your preliminary site planning since information relative to building
layouts and site improvements needs to be coordinated with basin design.
COORDINATION
The tasks outlined in the PROCEDURES section will require close cooperation
between the City, the Company, the consultant doing the work, and also
Larimer County since they sponsored the original master plan and a majority
of the Cooper -Slough Basin will still be in the County even if the brewery
site is annexed.
I have outlined the tasks and -procedures I believe should be followed. A
series of meetings must be held over a period of time by all parties
concerned so that options and alternatives can be discussed and evaluated.
From this process I am sure we can come to a mutually acceptable and
beneficial stormeiater management plan.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Hays, P.E.,
City Engineer
sko
CITY OF FOR I COLt_INS P O BOX 5Sn FORT COLLI",S, COLOR,ADO 80) 22 `)i'a 184-4220
PLANNING and DEVELOPh1ENT DEPART,-.IENT EXT.652
November 23, 1983
Mr. Len Mooradian
ANHEUSER-BUSCH
1 Busch Place
St. Louis, Missouri 63118
Dear Mr. Mooradian:
For your information, below are staff's comments concerning the proposed
Anheuser-Busch Master Plan and brewery which was presented at the conceptual
review meeting on November 21, 1983.
It should be clearly understood the following comments are offered informally
by staff to assist the applicant in preparing the detailed components of the
project application. Nothing contained herein shall preclude staff from making
modification of, or additions to, the above comments at the time of formal
application.
Master Plan
1. The location of the public park does not appear to be conveniently lo-
cated in terms of the residential areas it will be designed to serve.
Staff recommends the applicant reconsider the location of the park,
shifting it into future residential areas to the west.
2. The applicant will need to prepare a traffic study for the Master Plan.
This information should include trip generation figures, distribution of
traffic and future street needs. The purpose of this study is to enable
the City to accommodate the development prescribed in the Master Plan and
to make any required changes to the Master Street Plan if necessary. It
should also be used to determine collector street and curb cut
requirements in the Master Plan area.
I recommend the applicant's Transportation Planner, the City's Traffic
Engineer and the Planning staff meet next week to discuss this study.
Preliminary Plan
3. The traffic study should consider the traffic impact on surrounding roads
that will be used during construction and operation in the area rather
than being limited to entrances to the project. This information may be
Mr. Len Mooradian
From: Joe Frank
November 23, 1983
Page Two
available -in the URS interchange study but should be presented in a form
associated with the impacts of the brewery. The applicant's traffic
engineer should contact Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer, for
information in preparing this document.
4. The timing of utility improvements should be worked out as soon as
possible.
5. The Poudre Fire Authority would like to work with the applicant regarding
fire protection on the site.
6. Following the conceptual review meeting, staff reviewed the conceptual
documents in detail. It appears the following information was not includ-
ed in those documents. The following information should be included in
the formal application package:
a. Master Plan traffic study
b. Architectural elevations
C. Site plan indicating number and layout of parking areas with dimen-
sions; parcel size; square footage of building; proposed coverage of
buildings and parking; maximum building height; surrounding 150 foot
information; vicinity map; building envelope and dimensions; and,
owners certification, attorneys certification and Planning Board's
certification.
d. Landscape plan
e. Building height analysis
f. Discussion on noise impacts; water quality impacts; glare or heat
impacts; vibration impact; exterior lighting impact; and industrial
waste disposal.
g. Energy elements of the plan to reduce the overall reduction of
energy use by the project.
h. Signage
i. Final utility plans
If you have any questions, please feel free to call this office at 484-4220,
extension 6750.
Mr. Len Mooradian
From: Joe Frank
November 23, 1983
Page Three
ncerely,�
� /�AL
Joe Frank
(ieM or City Planner
cc: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
John Martz, Anheuser-Busch Real Estate
Larry Storms, Wilsey & Ham
Curt Smith, Director of Planning and Development
Jack Stein, Anheuser-Busch