Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-10-30FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH FORT COLLINS, COLORADO STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES Re -Submittal of Preliminary PUD Glaser Associates Architects Loveland, Colorado August 14, 1980 Since approval of the Preliminary PUD by the Fort Collins city council on December 4, 1979, the design for Phase One of the First Christian Church has been modified to be enlarged from 50,000 square feet in floor area to approximately 54,000 square feet. Since this constitutes an increase of more than 5%, we are submitting Phase One for re -approval as a Preliminary PUD. Please note that other aspects of the project such as intended use, design of the building, parking and drive configurations, and compliance with the building height regulations (which does not effect Phase One) have not been significantly changed. The landscaping, also as previously submitted, reflects the land- scape plan for the total development of the Master Plan. Although the increase in floor area exceeds 5% of Phase Dne, it constitutes only approximately a 3% increase to the total co:.:nlex. Therefore the Master Plan is not bc.ng re -submitted fo.: P&Z Board or council review. The time schedule will be changed only to reflect our start of construction which is anticipated in November, 1980. There- fore, completion of Phase One would occur wit:Iii.n two years, or by October of 1982. CMGLASER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 136 SOUTH LINCOLN AVENUE LOVELAND COLORADO 80537 (303) 669 3020 July 29, 1980 Roy A. Bingman Director of Engineering Services City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Roy: In response to our discussion with you yesterday morning, I am enclosing the site plans and legal description of the First Christian Church project at Drake and Lemay for the purpose of evaluating the prorated street widening fees to be assessed for Phase One construction. Also enclosed are the preliminary street improvement plans for East Drake from Stewart Engineering showing the encroachment onto church property. The latest gross area figures for the building are as follows: Phase One 53,456 square feet 37.2% Future Phases 90,087 square feet 62. 8% Total Project 148,543 We appreciate your attention in this matter. If you require any further information please contact our office. Very truly yours, Allen L. Maier Glaser Associates Architects AL M /pkl Fer 2256'-��� s ;767o 9 3 I Tot - �, i = 3 7,Z*� Z2 Sf �p r (,)�-17.3 F c1r -� CORNE« CONSU[TINC, COMPANY pobox 646 foRTcolliNS,COIORAdo80522 PkME (303)482.6650M MANAGEMENT/ENGINEERINf, October 2, 1980 Mr. Bob Smith Assistant City Engineer - Drainage City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 646 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Dear Bob: We are pleased to submit the drainage report for the First Christian Church PUD. Please be advised that storm water acceptance with Parkwood Homeowners Association is being worked out among the Church's planners, City planners, and the homeowners. The drainage system for First Christian Church was designed according to the City's storm drainage criteria. To the best of our knowledge, the drainage design meets or exceeds those criteria. Sincerely, CORNELL CONSULTING COMPANY Bill Blackwell Chief Designer a. �m� Harry A. Cornell, P.E. President BB:HAC/fsr Columbine CableVision December 24, 1980 Mr. Mauri Rupel Assistant City Engineer City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Rupel: In reference to your letter of December 1, 1980 concerning the rebuild of Drake Road from Lemay Avenue east; Columbine Cable - Vision will also be building along the north side of Drake Road and crossing Drake Road in several places. We anticipate that our construction in this area will start around May 1, 1981. We should have our plant completed in that area by July 1, 1981, Our plant will begin approximately 350 feet west of Brookwood and continue to approximately 300 feet east of Park Lake. Should this pose any problem, please feel free to contact me personally. Sincerely, Sohn Dennis General Manager JD/mk 1201 University Avenue/Fort Collins. Colorado 80521003) 493-7400 December 30, 1980 Mountain Bell Network Distribution P.O. Box 1139 Greeley, Colorado 80631 City of Fort Collins Attention: Mr. Mauri Rupel Assistant City Engineer, Development Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Sirs: In regards to your letter requesting information on our future plans on East Drake Road from Lemay Avenue east for one half mile. Mountain Bell does not anticipate any cable placement in this area for the next five years. However, it should be noted that we presently have a 900 pair cable in the street which could possibly require lowering, relocating, and/or replacement in conjunction with this proposed road rebuild. If we can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact Mr. Norris D. Chase on 330-5889. sincerely, Iry Troudt Manager cc: Roy Bi ngman Mike Herzig Ac �S7Ch/'iJ�an �lj.r<vr� everitt enterprises 3000 South College Avenue'P.O. Box 2125/ Ft. Coffins, Colorado 80522/Telephone 303-226-1500 January 9, 1981 Board of Trustees Roger Krempel First Christian Church Director of Public Works 608 East Drake Road City of Fort Collins t Fort Collins, Co 80522 P.O. Box 580 i Fort Collins, Co 80522 Dear Gentlemen: I thought I would take this opportunity to update you concerning the bidding and construction schedule for the Drake Road Improvements. The utility plan has been approved and accepted by the City of Fort Coliin5 Engineering Department. Evrritt ,,..tcrprises has entered _into an agreement with the First Christian Church to act as their agent as construction manager for their portion of Drake Road as well as Everitt Enterprises. There will be a pre -bid conference January 14, 1981 at 1:30 in the Everitt Enterprise conference room All bids must be received and in my office no later than 3:00 p.m. January 23, 1981. Bid awarding will be January 30, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. We anticipate starting construction on or about April 1, 1981 weather permitting. If you have any questions concerning this project please feel free to call, Sincerely, Tom Stafford Vice President of Land Development TS/dlk cc: Bob Everitt Gary Haxton Bob 7akely everitt enterprises 3000 South College Avenue/P.O. Box 2125/Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522/Telephone 303-226-1500 Mauri Rupel Assistant City Engineer Engineering Services Dept City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, Co Dear Mauri: During a discussion i Herzig and myself, it prefer that no outflow Drake Road project as vertical curb and gut of the small amount o Fort Collins' standar February 3, 1981 CN7/ST, 44",4 — �lP n n d your office on January 30, 1981 between you, Mike was determined that the City of Fort Collins would vertical curb and gutter be installed on the East shown on approved project drawings. Instead, all ter shown on the project drawings with the exception the traffice island, Sta 10+40± will be City of 30" inflow type. It was further determined that to accomodate this change a 15" RCP storm drain line (some 67+LF) will have to be installed from Inlet "B" crossing the roadway to a point on the South flowline of Drake Road at Sta 14+01.54 where an additional inlet will be needed. It was agreed that because these changes were requested by the City subsequent to their approval of project plans and drawings the cost of the additional 15" RCP storm line and inlet will be born born by the City. Please sign below as your acknowledgement of these changes and responsibilities for payment and return this letter to me so it can be added to the project contract documents. Sincerely, Robert Zakely. RZ/dlk Ma&i Rupel Assistant City Engineer, Development 2- 9-E3/ Date ;k ( IIY 01 1 ORI (()I I INS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 _ Ph 3031484-4220 Ext. 72S ENGINEERING DIVISION February 18, 1981 Mr. Bob Zakely Everitt Enterprises P.O. Box 2125 Fort Collins, Colorado Re: First Christian Church & Parkwood Subdivisions Construction of Drake Road Dear Bob: I have reviewed your projected summary of costs of the Drake Road construction with Roy Bingman and Mike Herzig. We concur with your analysis of the City's portion of the costs and suggest you proceed with construction contracts. We have included these costs in our 1981 oversizing budget and the funds are on hand. Thank you for your thorough summary. Sincerely, Maurice E. Rupel Assistant City Engineer - Development 7 I Z- � til everitt enterprises 3000 South College Avenue P.O. Box 2125, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522; Telephone 303-226 1500 March 2, 1981 Rick Endsdorf Traffic Engineer City of Fort Collins P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Rick: In accordance with your visit last week to the East Drake Road construction project and our subsequent telephone conversation we have deleted from our construction plans the moving of either the existing northeast or south- east traffic signal posts because both fall outside proposed paved areas nnr Srnr.nrr and ACCn,iaf Pq cnrvAv choking. I have contacted Roy Clausson of Flatiron Paving. He will get in touch with Colorado Signal who will in turn contact you with regard to placement of conduits, pull boxes, etc. which you indicated to me you would like to have installed. These will be placed at such time as roadway construction is at the point where they will not be damaged. Cost of this work will be billed to the City of Fort Collins. Sincerely, '5 Robert Zakely RZ:bjs cc: Flatiron Paving - Clausson Kiefer Concrete Bob Lee Stewart & Associates Mauri Rupel Tom Stafford (.IIY 01 I01?1 COLLINS P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 ENGINEERING DIVISION June 17, 1981 Mr. Carl Glaser Glaser Associates 136 S. Lincoln Avenue Loveland, Colorado W. Glaser, Recently I discovered an apparent oversight in the design of the First Christian Church site drainage plan in conjunction with the Eastborough detention pond. Currently the Eastborough detention pond has a concrete trickle channel installed to confine low flows through the pond. It has been our experience these facilities are required to help improve the aesthetics of these ponds by combating such health hazards as stagnant water and mosquitoes. The plans for the church site show two pipe systems discharging into the pond and not tying into the trickle channel. Since your proposed system will impact an already existing facility, I assume it would be the church's responsibility for this correction. At your earliest convenience, I could be happy to discuss this matter personally. A Smith Assistant City Engineer - Drainage cc: Dave Stringer --Mauri Rupel bcc: Stan Case d __ Roger Krempel r C.IIY (A IOU I (.OI I I�I� r.U.BUxAso FOKI CULLING, Qn_OK.AW) 80S22 MONL(303)48; 1220 OF ICL OF -( HE QlYMANAGER June 19, 1981 Ms. Charlene Nimmo Constrution Coordinator First Christian Church 608East Drake Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Ms. Nimmo: cc: Dave Stringer Mike Herzig Mauri Rupel Bob Lee Dottie Nazarenus F�j Your letter addressed to me dated June 2, 1981, has been reviewed by our - people and myself to ascertain the facts. Staff is quite familiar with your project, having followed it from concep- tual phase through Planning and Zoning hearings and City Council hearings. Our Engineering staff worked very closely with your design engineer on the design of Drake Road adjacent to your property and attended public hearings outside the City offices with your new neighbors. On your behalf, our staff assured your neighbors of your intent to build a quality subdivision with minimal adverse affect on them. The conduit and duct bank were placed within the easement and dedicated right-of-way as both existed at the time of installation. The depth of this installation also met the electric utility standard at that time. The City Council did not adopt a Master Street Plan until March 17, 1981, so the City Engineering staff could not give a definitive answer to the exact location of Drake Road until either a subdivision was submitted for consideration on the adjoining property or the Council had established a Master Street Plan. Neither had occurred at the time of the duct and conduit installations. Your design engineer is responsible for locating and identifying possible conflicts when he performs a survey and prepares detailed plans. He did this to the best of his ability and I'm sure endeavored to notify you of all the cost he could identify. Mr. St. John in our Light and Power Department visted with the survey tree last Fall and reminded them of the duct work existence. His recollection of their response was that they were aware of it and it r•:ould be "no problem". No one in the City anticipated the need to relocate these conduits. So none of us budgeted for the work. But they must be moved. Their move- ment. is a result of the street being developed which in turn is a necessary result of the church development and Everitt's developments. FIRST CHRISTIAN ,,tIURCH FORT COLLINS, COLORADO STATEMENT OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES Glaser Associates Architects Loveland, Colorado October 15, 1979 OWNER/DEVELOPER First Christian Church is a progressive, growing church that has been established in Fort Collins since 1893. Originally located at College and Magnolia, the church moved to a new facility on five acres at Drake and Stover in 1968. Their sanctuary accomodates only 350 to 400 people yet their average worship attendance exceeds 1,000, thus forcing the church to hold four services each Sunday. Besides limited building fa- cilities, parking is a major concern, not only for the inconvenience the present conditions impose on local residents, but also because it is stunting the growth of the church - people can't get in! The church's staff includes three full time ministers, headed by the Rev - rend Charlie Patchen, two lay -ministers, a business administrator, educa- tion director, and four secretaries. The membership is currently at approx- imately 2,000 and grows by at least 200 members per year with a high per- centage (40%) of visitors; indicating a high growth potential. First Christian Church takes an active role in the community with many varied ministries including: re -cycling clothes for the poor and delinquent girls, selling quilts to support institutionalized battered children, working with the elderly through fellowship, helping migrant workers and un-wed mothers, and a program for divorced singles, to mention but a few. Yet the church is severly limited by its facilities from expanding its ministries into other areas such as more programs for the youth. These cannot be accomodated by expanding their present facilities, therefore new facilities are desired, but not typical church facilities. First Christian Church has undertaken a bold master -plan to build a church that can continue to grove (within reason) with facilities that are multifunc- tional to the church and the community. Through master planning the church can avoid the pitfalls of traditional church design that does not adequately consider the future, and therefore this church can provide a useful legacy for future generations. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 53, /1y, Phase One shall consist of approximately .50,000 square feet of building area including the following: A multi_puMose area that can be used for 4vorship (seating up to 1200 people) or for recreation with two junior -high level basket - hall courts. An adjoining kitchen will also make this space suit- able for LZrge banquet:;. Ms. Charlene Nimmo June 19, 1931 Page Two These facts, coupled with the fact that this community has a tradition of making certain the costs of growth and development are paid by that growth and development, lead me to conclude that the pro-rata share is appro- priate. _ I wish we had had the foresight back in 1974 to anticipate your church development and its design, along with Everitt's, and I wish we had had the detailed advance planning to set grades and establish alignments of all streets in town. Today's problem would then not exist, having been.avoided when the conduit was installed. As it is, Light and Power- installed a duct bank system with conduit on top. They were placed 3-4 feet below the ground surface at that time. So the duct bank is still covered and okay. (It's a good thing too; it would cost over $300,000 to move.) But the conduit on top of the duct bank would not have been adequately covered by the street grade; so it was moved at a cost of $4,113.71. I hope this explains the situation clearly but without too much detail. If you have questions remaining, please call me or our staff at City Hall. We'll be happy to answer your questions further. Sincerely, John E. Arnold City Manager cc: Tom Stafford Rev. Charles Patchen Gary Cassell P.S. Per your request your map is being returned to you. c � -2-q �b IVFK architectstplanners a professional corporation 218 west mountain avenue fort collins, co. 80521 usa telephone 303 4133-4105 September 24, 1980 Mr. Joe Frank Senior Planner City of Fort Collins Planning Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Joe: This letter and the attached revised drawings are in response to staff coarnents on The Bridges final P.U.D. Staff concerns have been addressed as follows: Due to the amount of necessary information and limited space on the site plan, a special drawing showing only building envelopes in relation to platted lot lines and easenlent�, has been provided. This will greatly ease the Brlilding Department's issuance of building permits. The Fire Department's concerns and requirements of access and turning radii have been met. A tract of land immedi- ately east of The Bridges has been added to the plat and utility pions. This allows the limited access service road to be continued to Prospect Road. The above mentioned road, in combination with the drive serving parking structures "a" and "m" provides acceptable access to the ditch. We have had several discussions with the ditch companies and have their preliminary approval. Some technical details dealing with the best method of stabilization of the ditch bank near buildings "A" and `V" are still being worked out, but there is no reason to doubt that we will have written approval of the ditch companies in time for this item to be scheduled for the October 21 City Council meeting. -3- trees. Engineering is now asking for a 65-foot section to match the existing bridge at the New Mercer Canal. Obviously, we would like to do whatever we can to save the affected trees. We feel the following points are important to consider on this matter: The most recent Year 2000 traffic volume projections show the traffic load on this section of Prospect to be similar to that or, Taft Hill, Elizabeth and Mulberry, where reduced arterial standards have been used (street sections of 50-54 feet). Arterial improvements (widening) that have been installed in a piecemeal, project -by -project basis have resulted in inconsistent widths (as standards have changed), difficult profiles, varying pavement design, and in some cases, unnecessary tree removal. What we would most like to achieve is to permanently save the trees. If that is absolutely not possible, we would suggest paving (without curb and gutter) up to two feet from the trees for a temporary road width Of 53 fert, The trees would riot thee, be r0moved until the entire mile of Prospect (Taft to Shields) is improved. This would allow some time for new land- scaping to be established, and allow for the possibility - however remote - that a narrower width may be determined appropriate. We are anticipating The Bridges going to the October 21 City Council meeting. Please keep us informed of the status of this item. Sincerely, Eldon Ward EW:me CC: Jerrice Sharf Art March, Jr. -2- 4. Or, July 31 of this year I attended a meeting with you, Rick Ensdorff and Don Hisam. One of the items discussed and agreed upon at that meeting dealt with the landscape treatment along Prospect Road. It was felt that because the revised plan has replaced two and one-half story stacked units with lower (two story) townhomes, the need for gigantic berms along Prospect was largely mitigated. We are still proposing a significant landscape treatment of this area. Both the buildings and landscape plans are now more in scale with the neighborhood. The berming question is further impacted by Item 9 below. 5. As, with all other similar plans we have processed recently, minor planting adjacent to buildings is not shown on our landscape plan. Until final building drawings are developed, realistic planting plans for those areas are not possible. Planning staff may review those plans at the time of application for building permits if they wish. 6. Note No. 3 on our site plan specifies exactly the method of review for the pedestrian bridges in Raintree and should therefore be acceptable here. 7. Major pedestrian walks and bridges are included in a public access easement. 8. After meeting with Light and Power and Public Service Company, we have made minor adjustments to our plan so that those utilities are satisfied they can adequately serve this development. 9. The only unresolved problem concerns Engineering's new requirements for the Prospect Road cross section. Two existing mature trees on the bridges and over 80 mature trees on the property immediately east were planted on the existing property line (30 feet off the centerline of Prospect Road). Until recently, the standard on Prospect Road was a new flow line 30 feet off the center- line and an additional 20 feet of right-of-way (as was recently constructed in the Victoria Lake P.U.D.). The Bridges preliminary plan was reviewed and approved with the understanding that we could slightly modify (by two feet) that standard to save the existing trees and we would run a slightly meandering bike path behind the DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (con't.) An education area will be on three levels (including the basement) with elevator access to all three floors. It will include an attrac- tive youth center as well as an activities area for senior citizens. Total education capacity will be at approximately 700. The educa- tion area will also be used as an infant/child day-care center. A gallery area will be a circulation space for fellowship, exhibits, meetings, and receptions accented by overhead windows and trees. Outdoor recreation facilities will include a volleyball court and a playing field (regulation soccer size) for all types of sports. Also included will be a fenced play area for day-care. Parking shall be provided for 385 cars; this approximates a 3/1 ratio for sanctuary capacity to parking spaces vs. the 5/1 ratio required by city ordinances. Landscaping along Drake and Le May, on the southern property line, and Phase One parking areas would be initiated with Phase One. Parking areas on the eastern and south-eastern portions of the property designated for Phase Two would initially be used for a nursery for future landscaping and also for gardening. gv, b so Phase Two shall add, as needed, approximately-85-;600 square feet of building area including the following: A one and two story administration/library space which would be built in two phases (note: during Phase One, administration, the library, and small worship services will be maintained at the pre- sent church building.) An education addition to the previous education area, to accomo- date approxima e y wo hundred to three hundred additional stu- dents. A sanctuary to seat approximately 3,000 people in auditorium -type seating, which can also be used for concerts, plays, and speeches. A space for family worship on Sundays; a place for family entertain- ment and fellowship during the week. When this facility is construc- ted the parking would be expanded to 1, 047 cars, which again is close to a 3/1 ratio. If driving trends should change, or if better transit facilities are developed, less parking could be developed with the net effect of more landscape area. An atrium area that would be built in conjunction with the sanctuary to provide similar uses as the gallery in Phase One. A community/youth center for additional space to those facilities provided in the Phase One education area. DESIGN CONCEPTS The complex is arranged to have design integrity at any point of comple- tion. The design uses passive solar concepts with its predominately south- ern orientation, thermal mass walls with exterior insulation, and also active collectors for domestic water in the locker area for Ph=, One. SITE The site is a 25 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Drake and Le May. This area of Fort Collins is rapidly developing with family rosidences, which lends itself to the location of a church. The east and southern property lines coincide with residential sub -divisions. Across Drake Road to the north is Parkwood Lake and the Parkwood sub- division. West of the site, across Le May Avenue, a shopping center is currently under construction. Woodward Governor manufacturing is north- west of the site. The site location is excellent for proximity to the resi- dential areas that would use the facilities, with easy access via two arterial streets. The church recognizes the high visibility the site affords as well as the aesthetic precedence established by Woodward Governor and Parkwood Lake. Consequently, the church desires to build with quality and provide good landscaping. The re -development of Drake, along the northern property line, is a diffi- cult problem which the church is reviewing with the assistance of the city engineering department. Improvements to Drake would coincide with Phase One developments. Should the site, for purposes of discussion, follow the trends of the area, with a residential sub -division, the area would lose a "community center", and the importance of the "stater.:ent" created by Woodward Governor, Scotch Pines Center, and even Parkwood Lake would diminish. The church, especially as conceived, would compliment this statement. It is a philosophy of First Christian Church, which is demonstrated at their present church building, to have their facilities "owned" by the community through their use of the facilities. PARKING As previously discussed, parking would be phased in conjunction with the main assembly areas of the complex on three to one ratio. Parking along Le May would be, screened by depressing the parking as well as using earth -berms and landscaping. Parking adjoining residential areas would be screened by wood privacy fences and landscaping. Landscaped parking islands exceed city requirements in Phase One and meet city requirements is Phase Two. However, rather than spacing the islands by 15 cars, the islands are used to define secondary drives, which resuits in rows of cars ranging from 14 to 27 cars long. It is felt that this system will afford better circulation as well as fulfilling the need to "soften" the parking areas. Handicapped parking is provided on a 1/15 ratio with 24 spaces in Phase One and 68 spaces in Phase Two. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Phase One would start construction April , 1980 with anticipated comple- tion by January, 1982. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE (con't.) It is impossible to predict how long the total project development will take for Phase Two. Based on current community growth rates, church growth rates, and the anticipation that the church membership will grow even faster once Phase One is completed, it is possible that the total project will be completed within ten years. However, First Christian Church wishes to be allowed until January, 2000 for total completion; ie. twenty years. It is imperative that the church have the matter of the 3,000 seat sanc- tuary exceeding the recent building height ordinance reviewed and con- firmed during this PUD process. If a variance to the height regulations for this one future phase of construction cannot be assured, it could effect the initial design and development. The most definitive answer would be derived by submitting Phase Two as a Final PUD submittal along with Phase One. (Modifications would then be handled through amendments to the PUD.) Hence, the desire for a long development schedule rather than submitting each portion for a Final PUD as it "comes due." BUILDING HEIGHT REVIEW Phase One does not exceed the height regulations except for the "solar tower" which, by code definition, is exempt from height regulations. All other development in Phase Two is also planned to be below the 40' height restriction except for the 3,000 seat sanctuary. The eave condition of the sanctuary falls below the 40' height restriction (at 37' to allow for balcony seating). The only portion which exceeds the 40' is the roof structure which rises to a 62' height but by UBC definition, should be considered at its average height of 50' because it is a sloped surface. Again, the tower exceeds the height restriction with an overall height of 105', but is exempted from regulation by code definition. A flat roof could possibly be used on the sanctuary to stay below the heightregu- lation, however the sloped roof is desired for both exterior aesthetics and interior acoustics. Views This project will obstruct the views of the residents directly east of the property looking towards the foothills, however it will not obstruct the views of residents south of the property or living in Parkwood. On the other hand, essentially any development on this site would have the same effect. Light and Shadow The project, due to its location on the property does not affect the dis- tribution of Iight and shadow on adjacent property. Privacy The project does not affect the existing level of privacy in the neighborhood. Scale The project's scale and detail will add variety of design to the area while reinforcing coherent neighhorhood patterns. The massing of walls will be compatible to those of Woodward Governor, and the church development will amplify and compliment the statement which has been started at Drake and Le May. This impact would not be significantly changed by conforming to the 40' height restriction, however by enforcing the 40' height restriction, the beauty of the building would be greatly reduced. SITE DEVELOPMENT DATA Legal Description The south 800 feet of Tract E in the NW 1/4 of Section T7N, R68W, County of Larimer, Colorado. Land Use Data Gross Area of Site Net Area of Site Total Floor Area Coverage Breakdown 1,100,000 sq.ft.-25.25 acres 1,033,200 sq.ft.-23.72 acres 53,456 sq.ft. Building Coverage Driveway and Parking Public Street R.O.W. Open Space Active Recreational Open Space Parking Spaces Proposed: Parking Spaces Required: Proposed Street Cross Section IL S p' 41' 32,376 sq.ft. 79,282 sq.ft. 66,800 sq.ft. 729,518 sq.ft. 92,024.sq.ft. 376 240 TYPICAL 5T�fe.�.T GroSy 5?G iDN PP-Ae�-- r0AV Loor-iNU �--A6 L-E,' IAY_ AIE..__.L00K.L - NO I 2.94% 16.30% 6.07% 66.32Z 8.37% (24 handicapped) dILI GGLAS U ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS LO SOUTH LINCOLNOLORAD AVENUE LOVELAND COLORADO 80537 (303)669 3020 May 22, 1980 Maurice E. Rupel City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: First Christian Church, Driveway and curb -cuts Dear Morrie The intent of this letter is to document our meeting regarding the above subject on May 21, 1980. As provided in the preliminary approval of our Master Plan for the pro- ject, the church is allowed to exceed the city's requirement for drive entrance/exits maximum width of 35 feet. This variance applies to all four proposed drives, however as we discussed, the church may stay within the 35' limit on the two proposed drives which indicate only three lanes. As you suggested this could be accomplished by making the two exit lanes 11 feet in width and the one entrance lane 13 feet in width; the median would be eliminated. We shall certainly give this suggestion (and the suggestion of narrowing our drives to 11 ft. per lane) serious consideration because it would reduce costs and minimize the impact of paved areas. It is my understanding from your comments, and the comments of Rick Einsdorf, that the church shall also be allowed to use curb returns in lieu of curb cuts at all entrance/exits, although the city's preference is for the latter. Your suggestion of using curb cuts on our lesser drive (s) to control traffic was excellent and we shall also consider mak- ing that change. (This would apply to one or both of the designated three lane entrance/exits). Regarding the possible modifications in our site layout, I understand the fire departments requirements for access to the building will require that we maintain the drive directly east of the building unless the building is sprinklered. Other changes which we anticipate are decreasing the num- ber of parking spaces and also delaying landscaping within the two year constraints of the landscaping bond. If any of the information presented in this letter is not accurate and in agreement with your understanding, please contact me in writing imme- diately. We will have to move quickly on this project and your continued Maurice E. Rupel May 22, 1980 Page Two cooperation is appreciated. Very t ly yours, Carl J. Glaser, AIA Glaser Associates Architects CJG/pkl cc: Joe Frank, Planning Department Rick Einsdorf, Traffic Engineering Don Mc Clellan, Stewart Engineering Bill Hughes, First Christian Church