The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGILLESPIE FARM FEBRUARY 2001 - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-08-04OCT-2- 2002 1G:24 UPUGHTFP,YEVF PIPLEYTS 9-0 224 1662 •a I, — December 20, 2001 Post-IP Fax Note 7671 Il Date r pages To .fps From coloept_ Co. phw V Ftwffa V Fw V Fax V Mr. Tom Dougherty and Mr. Mike Sollenberger Sollenberger Doughterty Investments 220 E. Mulbenry Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Tom and Mike: Representatives of theTransportation Planning, Current Planning, and Engineering staffs have reviewed your submitted sketch site plan for Gillespie Farm, dated November 16t', 2001, showing a reduced number of bridge crossings over the abutting Windsor Reservoir Company #8 Outlet Irrigation Ditch and realignment of the north/south connector street_ The following should be considered an official response from the City of Fort Collins regarding these two requested development plan changes: 1. Number of street connections across the abutting ditch to the east Staff supports elimination of one bicycle/pedestrian ditch crossing from that shown on the approved Gillespie Farm Overall Development Plan (ODP). This change would require an amendment to the ODP and be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Board_ The resulting design would include: a. Three (3) roadway connections, each incorporating sidewalks and on -street bicycle lanes: 1. At County Road 52 ; 2. At the proposed east -west Connector street running through the center of the property, and 3. Along the proposed east -west Collector street, conterminous with the south property line_ b One (1) bicycle/pedestrian connection, midpoint between County Road 52 and the proposed east -west Connector street. 1. The required neighborhood center should be an integral part of the overall neighborhood design. The neighborhood center should have direct pedestrian and vehicular access from the project, with a combination of uses to support neighborhood activities and/or needs (4.4)(D). 2. The standard Neighborhood Park and Community Park fees will apply (Ordinance No 205, 1998). e. The plan needs to include reference to an Index of Drawings on the first plan sheet page. f. Provide a context plan showing the proposed site plan in relation to the surrounding area. This plan shall include an area beyond the property lines of the proposal showing the area and uses within one hundred fifty feet (five hundred (500') feet if natural areas are in the vicinity) of the proposal, exclusive of public right-of-way, at the same scale of the underlying proposal as required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. g. The overall development plan shall show the following: 1. Parcel size and existing zoning. 2. Existing topographical character of the land at a contour appropriate with the scale of the project: all water courses; flood plains; floodways; natural features; and existing vegetation (including all trees and shrubs having a diameter greater than two and one-half (2-1/2") inches by species), wetlands, natural areas and wildlife movement corridors. 3. An estimate of the limits of development (reference Section 3.4.1(N)(1) of the Land Use Code). 4 Approximate acreage and density of each area; number, height, and type of residential units; floor area. height, and types of business, commercial, and industrial uses. 5. Location and general nature of each land use. 6. Total land area and approximate location and amount of open space included in the residential, business, commercial, and industrial areas. 7. Approximate location of proposed and existing arterial collector and connector streets and major pedestrian and bicycle routes, including major points of access. 8. Location of all major utilities. 9. Approximate location and size in acres of any public use proposed such as parks, school sites, and similar public or semi-public uses. 10, Area shown on the overall development plan shall extend beyond the property lines of the proposal to include a survey of the area within at least one -hundred fifty (150') feet of the proposal, exclusive of public right-of-way, at the same scale as the proposal and include the following (except if natural areas are in the vicinity, then any natural areas within five hundred (500') feet are to be shown): (i) Land uses, location of principal structures and major existing landscape features. (ii) Densities of existing or approved residential uses. (iii) Traffic circulation system. (iv) Natural features of the landscape. (v) General topographical mapping at same scale as the overall development plan. 11, As required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual, the vicinity map shall include an surrounding the site within a distance of at least one (1) mile showing at least the following: (i) Zoning districts. (ii) Traffic circulation system with street names labeled. (iii) Major public facilities. (iv) Location of existing municipal boundary lines and, if applicable, the urban growth area boundary. h. Please provide a written Statement of Planning Objectives for each of the standards of LUC Section 2.3.2(H) justifying compliance with applicable land use standards. In addition, the narrative needs to also address the Overall Development Plan Submittal Requirements (3)(d)(i)-(vii). i. The Overall Development Plan needs to comply with all provisions of Land Use Code Division 2.3 Overall Development Plan standards and criteria. j. The Overall Development Plan needs to comply with all provisions of Land Use Code Division 3.7 Compact Urban Growth Standards. k. Label the appropriate scale(s) for each illustrative sheet plan. I. Delineate all property lines and all rights -of -way and improvements on all plans. m. The plan needs to include existing building envelope/footprint dimensions and distance to nearest property lines. n. The applicanUdeveloper shall coordinate all emergency, infrastructures and utility infrastructure needs to ensure that all infrastructure provisions are fully met. o. A neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for August 23, 2000, per Land Use Code Section 2.2.2. Please contact Ron Fuchs of this office to assist you with this meeting. p. The application and plan shall meet all submittal parameters as outlined and required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. q. Need to comply with all provisions of the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. r. The burden of demonstrating compliance with all City of Fort Collins Development Manual, Land Use Code and Mountain Vista Subarea Plan standard and criteria is with the applicanUdeveloper. s. All modifications to code standards will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. 10. Parks and Recreation offers the following: a. Need to comply with all park dedication parameters as outlined in the Land Use Code. b, Neighborhood Park and Community Park fees will apply to this site. c. Coordinate all park concerns with Parks and Recreation. PROJECT fl, COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: August 31, 2000 DEPT: Engineering PROTECT: #29-00 Gillespie Farm ODP — Type II (LUC) PLANNER: ENGINEER; Ron Fuchs Mark McCallum All comments must be received by: September 27, 2000 General Comments In addition to this application, the City has received three other applications in the area. One is the Lind ODP, which is just north of County Road 52. The second is an amendment to the Richard's Lake ODP. The third is the Second Filing of Richard's Lake PDP. As you will read below, the Lind and Richard's Lake properties have an effect on the layout of this site and vice versa. As a result, the Engineering Department shall require a meeting to discuss the arterial and collector street network connections and improvements, and the City Bike Trail system. Due the wave of submittals that the City has received to meet the Amendment 24 retroactive deadline, City Staff has only reviewed this application to date. Therefore, the Engineering Department would like this applicant to work with Current Planning Department to coordinate the appropriate time for a meeting. ♦ Please see redlined comments on all sheets of the Overall Development Plans. More specific comments will be mentioned below. If you have any questions, please call me (Mark McCallum) at 221-6605 ext. 7656. Overall Development Plan ♦ The proposed City Bike Trail is shown to cross County Road 52 about 700 feet from the County Road 52/ County Road I I intersection. The Parks and Recreation Policy Plan (Master Plan) depicts the proposed City Bike Trail to connect closer to the intersection of County Road 52/ County Road 11. The location of the connection should be discussed with all pertinent City Departments. It should also be shown on context plan to show it will connect through the Lind ODP to the north. From what Date: ^ Signature: �� Ir—�F C--� PLEAS SEND COPIES ❑ PLAT OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ NO COMMENTS - SUBMIT MYLARS ❑ UTILITY 0 LANDSCAPE I have seen of the Lind ODP, this application is not consistent; However, it the Engineering Departments opinion that this is more consistent with the LUC, and MSP. In addition the proposed Bike Trail, regardless of the location at which it cross an arterial street shall be designed to cross with an underpass (Street Design Manual, Section 1.02.07). Since the Mountain Vista Plan is not complete the Engineering Department is not sure if an underpass is needed at other street crossings. ♦ In general, the alignment of the internal collector streets should correspond with the Master Street Plan alignment at the respective boundaries. The alignment of the internal north/ south collector does not correspond with the Master Street Plan. In addition, the proposed alignment does not correspond with Lind ODP. The alignment should be discussed. Also, the east/ west collector shows an offset at the eastern boundary, which is not acceptable. ♦ Has the north/ south collector street along the eastern boundary been reviewed for an adequate setback from the Overland Ditch No. 8? This is more of PDP comment and a construction issue, but an issue to consider. ♦ Please add the notes and legend as shown. ♦ Please show the actual property boundary. Does the property boundary absorb the ditch or not? ♦ As noted in the first comment of this letter, the Engineering Department would like to discuss the arterial street network connections and improvements. The impacts of this project, the Lind property, and the Richard's Lake property at full build -out would have a significant impact to County Road 11. Other connections might have to be made and should be discussed. /jr9m iPROJECT ■�r COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannino, DATE: August 31, 2000 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: #29-00 Gillespie Farm ODP — Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Ron Fuchs no later than the staff review meeting: September 27, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference Flo Cor�e� Signature - — CIIECK HERE, IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other kmim Utility _Redline Utility __Landscape citvofFort Collins PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Citv of Fort Collins Current DATE: December 27, 2000 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: #29-00 Gillespie Farm ODP — Type II (LUC) PLANNER: Ron Fuchs ENGINEER: Mark McCallum All comments must be received by: January 17, 2001 General Comments • Please see redlined comments on all sheets of the Overall Development Plans. More specific comments will be mentioned below. If you have any questions, please call me (Mark McCallum) at 221-6605 ext. 7656. When the items below have been resolved, the Engineering Department will be ready for public hearing. • A meeting to discuss the internal north/ south collector should be set-up by the Current Planning Department (contact Troy Jones). The City is receptive to allowing the alignment change for the internal north/ south collector, but would like to get feedback from the property owner the north (Lind ODP). • The proposed Bike Trail, regardless of the location at which it cross an arterial street shall be designed to cross with an underpass (Street Design Manual, Section 1.02.07). Since the Mountain Vista Plan is not complete the Engineering Department is not sure if an underpass is needed at other street crossings. • Please show the actual property boundary. Date: 1 /7-'b I Signature• A�I�71lZ� e' PLEAS SEND COPIES ❑ PLAT ✓ OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY ❑ LANDSCAPE 4ab? ❑ NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS 1935 Sherell Drive Fort Collins, CO 80524 September 10, 2000 Mr. Tom Dougherty Tom Dougherty Construction 220 East Mulberry Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Gillespie Farm Development Plan Dear Mr. Dougherty: While I was not able to be at the August 23rd meeting concerning this development plan, I do have a great interest and some concerns about the development of this property. I live near the proposed development and often walk on County Road 11. I am very concerned about the density of the proposed development. The proposed 645-667 units will put a strain on traffic use of County Road 11 and nearby streets, such as Country Club Road. We must also consider what conditions will be like if each potential development along County Road I 1 would have a similar number of units. I would like to see fewer units in this development. I also think it would be very good to have the units facing County Road 11 be similar in character to the houses already on that street, i.e. single family homes on 150-foot lot sizes. Placement of the multi -family units away from County Road 11 would help maintain the character of the neighborhood. County Road 1 I is used heavily by neighborhood (and other) people for walking, running and biking. The proposed widening County Road 1 I may make these activities more dangerous. Traffic on County Road 11 already often exceeds the posted speed limit. I certainly hope that efforts will be made to have safe and wide -enough bike/walking lanes provided along with any widening of Country Road 11. I also hope that consideration will be given to creating an additional attractive route from the development to I-25 (e.g. paving the eastward extension of Richards Lake Road). Concerning the farm buildings on the "Gillespie Farm" development property, I like the idea of preserving these structures. They add to the country atmosphere of the neighborhood and will preserve an aspect that is fast disappearing. I would expect that if the farmhouse and associated buildings are preserved, appropriate maintenance and upkeep would also be provided, which might satisfy the neighbors' concerns about the appearance of these buildings. Thank you for considering my concerns about this proposed development. Sincerely, Marilyn An }son cc: Mr. Ron Fuchs, City Planner, City of Fort Collins Current Planning Department Mr. Joseph Bleicher, neighbor August 30, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board Members Ron G. Fuchs Fort Collins Planning Department V F R IP L Fa' 281 North College Avenue Vssori-crr:s uc. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Planning Objectives for Gillespie Farm - Overall Development Plan Dear Mr. Fuchs: ' l%,, -, The Gillespie Farm — Overall Development Plan (ODP) is a 160- acre property located at the southeast corner of County Road I I and County Road 52. Existing residences are located to the west adjacent to County Road 11, a Poudre School District site is situated south of the site and undeveloped agricultural land borders the site on the north and east. The property is zoned LNIN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District and is within the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The site slopes from County Road 11 east towards an existing ditch on the east side of the property. The applicant proposes a mixed -use residential development including a neighborhood center with a public park and private neighborhood recreation center. A green corridor will cross the site in a diagonal direction from the northwest corner to the southeast and will include bike / pedestrian ways as identified in the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. The overall housing density will range from 5 to 8 dwelling units per net acre as required by the City's Land Use Code. A detention area is located along the eastern boundary. Two collector streets will cross the site. Four collector street are proposed in accordance with the City's Master Street Plan. Two proposed collector streets cross the site from west to east and north to south. One proposed collector street runs along the east boundary and a second on the south boundary. Local street connections are provided at 660 feet intervals. An alternative compliance request is required for public street connections on the north and south boundaries. Please see attached Alternative Compliance Request letter. Existing farm buildings on the site are located approximately a quarter of a mile south of the intersection of County Roads I I and 52. One existing vacant building is also located in the southwest corner of the site. All buildings are currently being assessed by the Landmark Preservation Society for eligibility. No existing wetland or special wildlife habitats have been identified within the project site. MountainVista Subarea Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan include: A. Land Use PRINCIPLE, NtV-LU-1: The Mountain Vista Subarea will have a balance of residential, commercial, civic, and social facilities. The project will be a low -density mixed -use development with single family and multi -family homes. A proposed neighborhood center with a public park will provide a social facility within the neighborhood. B. Transportation PRINCIPLE MV-T-1: Consistent with the Land Use Code, the transportation system within the sub area will have: Item 3) integrated local networks with direct, convenient interconnections between developments. The development will have four proposed collector streets in accordance with the City's Master Street Plan . Two proposed collector streets cross the site from west to east and north to south. One proposed collector street runs along the east boundary and a second on the south boundary Policy MV-T-2.6: Bike routes and pedestrian connections will be developed to link the subarea to the Downtown and Poudre River Trail. These facilities will make logical and coordinated connections to the comprehensive city-wide bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems. Bike / pedestrian trail will cross diagonally across the site within an open space area. The trail is consistent with the Mountain Vista Subarea Parks Master Plan and will connect with trial systems outside of the project site. City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan include: PRINCIPLE LU-4: More specific subarea planning efforts will follow the adoption of these City Plan Priciples and Policies which tailor City Plan's city-wide perspective to individual neighborhood, districts, corridors, edges. Policy LU: 4.5: Priorty Subareas. The proposed developments lies within the Mountain Subarea and complies with the Plan Principles and Policies contained in that document. PRINCIPLE CAD-1: Each addition to the street system will be designed with consideration to the visual character and experience of citizens who will use the street system and adjacent property. Together, the layout of the street network and streets themselves will contribute to the character, form and scale of the city. Policy CAD —1.2 Street Layout. Policy CAD- 1.3 Streetscape Design. The proposed collector streets comply with the City's Master Street Plan and will provide direct access between County Roads I 1 and 52. A neighborhood park will be accessible from the proposed streets. PRICIPLE USG-1: A variety of housing types and densities will be available throughout the! urban area for all income levels. Policy HSG -1.1 Land Use Patterns. Policy I1SG— 1.2 Housing Supply. Policy HSG — 1.4 Land for residential Development. The project will have a variety of single-family and multi -family housing types. Policy ENV-3.3 Water Demand Management Policy. The landscape plan for the project will utilize the following xeriscape principles: Plant material with a low to moderate water requirements Limited turf areas Effective use of soil amendments An efficient irrigation system Appropriate maintenance OCT-23-2002 16:25 VAUGHTFPYE'(JF PIPLEYTS 9?0 224 1662 P.02i02 2. "Straightening" of the north -south Connector Street Your proposed north -south Connector street alignment varies from that shown on the Master Street Plan, creating an offset T-intersection. Based on the information submitted to date, staff maintains that the proposed realignment will pose safety concerns particularly for bicyclists. This issue is of critical importance given the relatively }sigh likelihood that school district -owned land to the south will be developed as an elementary, junior high or high school site. If you choose to pursue realignment of the approved street location, additional information must be provided showing how the bicycle and pedestrian Level of Service (LIDS) standards will be met. Staff will make a determination based upon the Midrimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual, excerpts of which have been attached for your reference. Please note that the public school site to the south would be considered a "priority destination", and must be directly connected to your project site. Directly connected meaning that "the project site is penetrated by the bicycle facility; or the bicycle facility runs immediately adjacent the property and is not separated from it by an significant barriers; or the bicycle facility tuns perpendicular to the property edge and is readily accessible from the property with no significant barriers. The minimum Bicycle LOS to a public school site is "A". Should you have any questions or require additional information regarding the LOS standards, please contact Mark Jackson at 416-2029. Feel free to give me a call if you wish to further discuss the City's position relative to these two issues. Sincerely, Cameron Gloss, AICP Current Planning Director Greg Byrne Mark Jackson Ted Shepard Enc. TOTAL P.02 PRINCIPLE A:V-I: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure. Policy AN — 1.1 Relationships to Residential Districts. Policy AN — 1.2 Street Network. Policy an — 1.6 Pedestrian Network. The project will provide well connected street, bicycle and pedestrian trails and sidewalks within the site and vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent properties. Principle AN-2. A wide variety of open lands, such as small parks, squares, greens, Play fields, natural areas, gardens, greemvays, and other outdoor spaces should be integrated into the neighborhoods. Policy an —2.1 Neighborhood Parks and Outdoor Spaces. Policy AN- 2.2 Ownership of Outdoor Spaces. A proposed neighborhood center with public park and private neighborhood recreation center will be accessible from streets, the bike trail and pedestrian walks within the site and adjacent developments. All public open space areas are to be maintained by the City. The neighborhood recreation center and detention area will be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. PRINCIPLE AN-4: Design policies for residential buildings are intended to emphasize creativity, diversity, individuality. The following design policies are based on the premise that truly creative design is responsive to its context and the expressed preferences of citizens, and contributes to a comfortable, interesting community. The proposed single-family and multi -family residences will provide a variety of house models. Building characteristics and materials will aim to be consistent throughout the site. PRINCIPLE LMN — 1: Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods will have an overall minimum average density of five (5) dwelling units per acre, achieved with a mix of housing types. Policy LMN— 1.2 Mix of Housing Types and Lot Sizes. The proposed project will have a variety of lot sizes and housing types including single- family and multi -family houses. PRINCIPLE LMN — 2: The size, layout and design of a Low Density Mixed — Use Neighborhood should make it conductive to walking, with all the dwellings sharing the street and sidewalk system and a neighborhood center. The proposed neighborhood center is located so it will be accessible within the development. The neighborhood center will include an eight acre public park and private neighborhood recreation center. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you during the development review process. Sincerely, VF Ripley Associates inda Riple October 5, 2000 The Nineteenth Green Partnership C/O Farmer A. Gillespie Jr. 6373 South Grape Court Littleton, CO 80121 RE: Overall Development Plan — Gillespie Farm — First Filing Comments Dear Mr. Gillespie This letter is in response to plans for Gillespie Farm Overall Development Plan (Current Planning File #29- 00) submitted on September 27, 2000. Please note that staff reviewed your plans and the Current Planning Department mailed request for comments to several public agencies and departments. This development proposal is subject to and shall comply with all requirements set forth in the City's Land Use Code (LUC), specifically: Articles 2. Administration (Development Review Procedures); Article 3. General Development Standards; Article 4. [Zoning] Districts; the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan; and, the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) requires that throughout all land use proceedings, the burden to comply with all applicable standards rest with the applicant. Staff, after reviewing materials submitted by the applicant, finds that revisions/re-design to the submitted plans dated 08/29/00 are warranted to meet the Land Use Code, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. The following lists the agencies and departments that responded A. Stormwater Utility; B. Engineering; C. Transportation Planning; D. Engineering Pavement; E. Post Office; F. AT&T Digital; G. Park Planning; H. Zoning; I. Streets; J. Light & Power; K. Poudre Fire Authority; L. Water/Wastewater; M. Building Inspection; N. Forestry; 0. Natural Resources; P. Advance Planning; provides the following- 1) Mountain Vista Subarea Plan a. The proposed CDP complies with the adopted Mountain Vista Subarea Plan for the LMN District including residential uses, neighborhood center, neighborhood park, street classifications, and trail location. 2) Neighborhood Center a. The central location of the neighborhood center works well with the surrounding LMN residential areas and proximity to the bike/greenway. b. The applicant needs to add one more use to the required minimum of two uses for the neighborhood center. The private neighborhood recreation center satisfies 1 use. The Neighborhood Park meets the requirements of the public gathering space, but not an additional use. 3) Existing Farm Cluster a. The existing farm related buildings are currently being assessed by the Landmark Preservation Society for eligibility. These buildings are located within the proposed LMN residential area and not part of a neighborhood center. An alternative approach could include this farm cluster as an additional neighborhood center, to include non-residential uses for community facilities. b. The main farmhouse and the remaining buildings could be located on a separate lot and will be included in the calculation of density for LMN requirements. The remaining farm accessory areas could be designated as open space and netted out the density calculations with LMN requirements per LUC Section 3.8.18. This would provide for long-term maintenance of the house and grounds as an option. However, the neighborhood center component of the LMN zone requiring a minimum of two uses will still need to be met with the overall development plan and subsequent project development plans. 4) Diagonal Bikeway a. The north terminal end the proposed bike trail will need to be coordinated with the final trail segment located within the Richards Lake PUD Project to the north west and any future development directly north. b. The Mountain Vista Principles and Policies ( MV-T-1, MV-NOL 1.2, 1.3.) support the described greenway and bike trail system which is off-street, to the extent possible. The trail design should incorporate underpasses at primary street crossings. These facilities will need to be coordinated with Park Planning and Stormwater Utilities and any Ditch Companies. Q. Current Planning Department; provides the following- 1) Prior to formal re -submittal, it is pertinent that City staff meets with you and your team to discuss potential issues as they relate to the Land Use Code, the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan criteria and standards. The Land Use Code requires Gillespie Farm CDP tie in with the surrounding area as a whole (east, west, north and south) including interconnecting direct vehicular and pedestrian ways with the Lind Property CDP to the north. 2) The plan needs to include reference to an Index of Drawings on the first plan sheet page. 3) The plan shall include an area beyond the property lines of the proposal showing the area and uses within one hundred fifty feet (five hundred (500') feet if natural areas are in the vicinity) of the proposal, exclusive of public right-of-way, at the same scale of the underlying proposal as required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. The plan shall show the following: a. Land uses, location of principal structures and major existing landscape features. b. Densities of residential uses. c. Natural features of the landscape. d. General topographical mapping at same scale as the overall development plan, please include contour lines on the overall development plan. 4) As required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual, the vicinity map needs to include an area at least one (1) mile of the site showing the following: a. Major public; facilities; are any beyond the 24-inch waterline? 5) Please provide a written narrative addressing the Overall Development Plan Submittal Requirements (3)(d)(i)-(vii) [note (i) has been addressed] as outlined by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. (i) Statement of appropriate City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed Overall Development Plan. (ii) Description of existing and proposed, open space, buffering, landscaping, circulation, transition areas, wetlands and natural areas. (iii) Estimate of number of employees for commercial and industrial uses. (iv) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. (v) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meeting(s),... . (vi) Name of the project as well as any previous name(s) the project may have been known by. (vii) A narrative description of how conflicts between land uses are being avoided or mitigated. 6) Please provide a formatted breakdown of densities (gross and net) per the Development Manual. 7) Please include percentages of total land area included in the residential, business and commercial areas. 8) The location of all proposed and existing arterial, collector and connector streets and major pedestrian and bicycle routes, including major points of access need to be proposed and shown on the plan sets as required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. 9) The approximate location and size in acres of any public use needs to be shown as required by the City of Fort Collins Development Manual. 10) Please provide written information complementing the submitted Statement of Planning Objectives for each of the standards of LUC Section 2.3.2(H) justifying compliance with applicable land use standards: a. Section 2.3.2 (H) of the Land Use Code identifies eight possible criteria for reviewing Overall Development Plans. An ODP must comply with all applicable criteria or request a modification. A. Section 2.3.2 (H)(1) — Permitted Uses and District Standards — Please explain how the ODP does/does not meet the permitted uses and applicable zone district standards of zone districts contained within the boundaries of the ODP and is consistent with any applicable general development standards. B. Section 2.3.2 (H)(2) — Residential Densities — Please explain how the ODP does/does not meet the residential density ranges of the LMN districts. C. Section 2.3.2 (1-1)(3) — Contiguity Requirements of the Compact Urban Growth Standards — Please explain how the ODP does/does not meet the contiguity requirements that at least 1/6 of the proposed development's boundaries are contiguous to existing urban development within either the City or unincorporated Larimer County within the Urban Growth Area. D. Section 2.3.2 (H)(4) — Master Street Plan and Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards — Please explain how the ODP does/does not conform to the Master Street Plan requirements and the street pattern/connectivity standards both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the plan. Please note: and identify adjacent and internal streets shown on the Master Street Plan and designation. There are four specific requirements that must be met to meet the ODP criteria: 1) Section 3.6.3 (C) Spacing of Full Movement Collector and Local Street Intersections With Arterial Streets. 2) Section 3.6.3 (D) Spacing of Limited Movement Collector or Local Street Intersections With Arterial Streets. 3) Section 3.6.3 (E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets. 4) Section 3.6.3 (F) Utilization and Provision of Sub -Arterial Street Connections to and from Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. E. Section 2.3.2 (H)(5) — Transportation Connections to Adjoining Properties — Please explain how the CDP does/does not provide for the location of transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into and through the overall development plan site from neighboring properties for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle movement. F. Section 2.3.2 (H)(6) — Natural Features — Please explain how the CDP does/does not indicate the location and size of all natural areas and features within its boundaries and estimating of the limits of development and natural area buffer zones per :>ection 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. G. Section 2.3.2 (H)(7) — Drainage Master Plan — What drainage basin does this overall development plan lie within and were all criteria and constraints of the Drainage Basin Master Plan were utilized in the preparation of the overall drainage report and is this CDP consistent with the Drainage Basin Master Plan. H. Section 2.3.2 (H)(8) — Application of Housing Density and Mix of Uses Calculations — This criteria requires that any standards in the Code relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the entire CDP, not on each individual Project Development Plan (PDP) review, please elaborate. 11) LUC Street Pattern Connectivity: a) Sections 3.6.2, 3.6.3 and 4.4 imply that it is in the public's best interest to have neighborhoods which transition and link to surrounding neighborhoods with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks street system with multiple direct street connections at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet. LUC Section 3.6.3(A)-(F) requires that the local street system provide multiple direct connections with a street system pattern of through streets to facilitate traffic movements. Streets need to connect to other streets within and through a development and to existing and future streets outside the development to serve parks, schools or other public and private lands within a neighborhood (see attached redlines). i) Factoring a road system on the north, south, west and east property lines, the street system needs to provide for both intra- and inter -neighborhood connections to knit developments together (i.e. street connections to future streets and future developable lands and internal to the property as required by LUC Section 2.3). The Code requires a minimum of three (3) potential roadway connections on each north, west, east and south property lines. A request to not comply with street connections to the west across County Road 11 into the Fort Collins Country Club would be compelling; however, the elimination of street access designations into that portion noted as Anheuser-Busch, Poudre School District Site and the Allen site (Lind Property) is not warranted. In order to comply with 2.3.2(H) there is the need to provide street connectivity on a 660 feet street system layout. We need to meet to discuss the alternative compliance as requested and submitted. b) To assist City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board in evaluating the alternative compliance of code standards, a legitimate plan meeting code standards needs to be submitted. To assist the Decision Maker in determining Alternative Compliance, a revised narrative needs to be submitted to the City addressing Land Use Code Section 3.6.3. 12) The plan needs to comply with all limitations imposed by the Land Use Code including the Land Use Standards of LUC Division 4.4 as it regulates density; mix of housing; neighborhood centers; other nonresidential development; facing uses; small neighborhood parks; and, Development Standards of LUC Division 4.4 regulating street system block size; nonresidential and mixed -use buildings and maximum residential building height. 13) See Advance Planning Comments as they relate to the neighborhood center component. 14) All redlined documents with plan revisions shall be returned to the Current Planning Department. Additional comments and the required number of revised plans may be forthcoming as the various departments including the Current Planning Department and reviewing agencies continue to review this request. Please provide a written response to each of the above comments with the submittal of plan revisions. In addition, a revised site development plan drawn to scale which is clearly dated and labeled shall be submitted to address the above. Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code requires that an applicant submit revisions based on this letter within 90 days or the project application becomes null and void. Your response to the City's concerns is due by January 3, 2001. A 30-day extension to this deadline is available. Request for an extension should be directed to the Current Planning Director. If remaining issues are those that do not require plan revisions, a status report verifying continuing efforts toward resolving the issues is required within the same timeline. To facilitate the complete re -submittal of the application with supplemental materials, please have your project manager contact Ginger Dodge and/or Voneen Macklin of the Current Planning Department at 970.221.6750. Please contact me at 970.221.6750 and/or e-mail: ruchs(Dci,fort-collins.co.us if you should have any questions or concerns related to these comments. Sincerely, Ronald G. Fuchs City Planner cc: Mark McCallum Karen McWilliams Pete Wray Current Planning File #29-00 D:1My DocumentslPlarning Document\Gilespie FarmlGillespie Farm CDP first filing comments.doc Mark McCallum - oct10 min 00.doc Page 1 Growth Management Lead Team 281 North College Avenue 1:30 — 3:00 p.m. October 10, 2000 AGENDA: 1. Six Month Planning Calendar 2. Lead Team Planning Calendar 3. Agenda and Packet Materials for October 16 CGMC Meeting Agenda: Fall Land Use Code Revisions Ted Annexations Outside the UGA Greg Inclusionary Zoning Revisited 4. Mountain Vista LOS 5. Annexation of Natural Areas inside the UGA ATTENDEES: Greg Byrne Tom Shoemaker Tom Vosburg Ron Phillips Cameron Gloss Patty Storm MINUTES: Steve Roy ** Six Month Planning Calendar ** Li Added "Mountain Vista Contiguity and APF" to the January 8, 2001 meeting. u Added "East Mulberry Corridor Plan" to the February 12, 2001 meeting. Li Removed "Poudre River Land Use Plan, City of Fort Collins/Larimer County Urban Growth Area IGA, Mountain Vista Contiguity and APF, and East Mulberry Corridor Plan" from "Unscheduled". ** Lead Team Planning Calendar ** ❑ Added "Amendment 24" to next week's agenda. Li Added Mountain Vista LOS to next week's agenda. u Added "Street Standards Update" to the November 7'h meeting. ** Agenda and Packet Materials for October 16 CGMC Meeting ** Agenda: Fall Land Use Code Revisions Ted Shepard Annexations outside the UGA Greg Byrne Inclusionary Zoning Revisited Steve Roy ** Mountain Vista LOS ** Tom Vosburg wanted to update the team on what's been done, and also to clarify the charter for the team and it's mission. A while back, the contiguity requirement of the Mountain Vista site was discussed, and the adequacy of the adequate public facilities since this is the site where new development will be directed. The issue of the Vine/Lemay intersection arose, and the fact that it is close to failing as an intersection. Mark McCallum - oct10_min_00.doc Page Eric Bracke did a Transportation Study and the Vine/Lemay intersection is very close to failing at this point in time. New development proposals have been submitted, and under the new Land Use Code, APF must be funded to approve new development. There was a lot of discussion centered around what work staff could do to scope out the issues, or if a consultant needs to be hired. Ron stated that Transportation Planning cannot take on a project of this size at this point in time. And that we should not necessarily assume this will be the intersection of choice. Maybe we should review this issue on a broader basis. Ron will discuss with Transportation Planning, and we will discuss the issue again next week. ** Annexations of Natural Areas inside the UGA ** Shoe wanted to check with the Growth Management Committee on our current views of annexing natural areas within the UGA. Their direction is that we should proceed with annexation of these: lands whenever and wherever they are eligible. Current Planning will handle the processing of the annexation. Assuming eligibility, they will proceed with the two properties north of Kingfisher Pointe, and the property east of Timberline Road. The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m Transpor,_,ion Services EnIineering Department Citv of Fort Collins August 14, 2001 Mr. Thomas Dougherty 220 East Mulberry Fort Collins, Co. 80524 RE: Gullespie Farm — Number 8 outlet, Eaton ditch Dear Tom: The intent of this letter is to clarify the City's desire as it relates to the vehicular structures across the number 8 outlet of the Eaton ditch adjacent to the eastern portion of the Gullespie Farm development project. As we discussed, there is uncertainty of what development may occur on the Anheuser Busch property immediately east of the Gullipie Farm project. Because of this uncertainty, the City does net want the construction of any vehicular structures (interior to the site) over the outlet ditch to be built at the time of the Gullespie Farm development. However, we will ask that the developer provide the City with some preliminary design work such as proposed height, span bridge and/or culvert size, road alignments and grades. As we work through the Gullespie Farm PDP we will address the requirements related to these structures and develop language to be placed into the Development Agreement for the Gullespie Farm project. In order, to satisfy the City's Land Use Code requirements, the most viable option is to escrow monies for the cost of construction of these structures. These funds will be escrowed to the city by the Gullespie Farm developer and held for a period not to exceed 7 years. If at such time, the seven years has lapsed and no development has occurred or is planned to occur on the eastside of the ditch the monies held in escrow will be released to the Gullespie developer. Once the escrow has been released the Gullespie Farm development will have no further obligation to the City for the cost of the structure improvements. _Bl '\nrih C_.dlt ]nue '.Q.3o� c�U • ;=orr( �91ins, C ti0._,_.� �L'-�U , 0,70) 21--oo -) APR-16-2002 21:17 MATTHEW J DELICH 21,31 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE:: 4,!6/O Z To; M�rS ysFe L Ci . 78 iR-OM: Matthew J. Delich, P.E 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone #:Z2f--6605 Phone # 970-669-2061 FAX #: 970-669-5034 TOTAL.NUMHEA OF PAGES WITH THIS COVER SHEET: MESSAGES/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 3 The escrowed funds will be based upon an estimate of one half of the construction costs for three structures, prepared by the Gullespie Farm development and approved by the City. Again, at the time of the Gullespie Farm PDP we will work on the specifics to establish this escrow amount and when it will need to be established with the City. Sincerely, David Stringer, Development Review Manager CC: Matt Baker Development File November 12, 2002 File: 0190LT02 00 co QMr. Mike Herzig, P.E. m Fort Collins Engineering Department o LO P.O. Box 580 o 0) Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 a � O o p Dear Mike: U rn • a This letter was prepared for the Gillespie Farm ODP to request 0 LL variances to "Section 7.4 General Design Elements, Table 7-3, Access z wManagement," as contained in the Larimer County Urban Area Street o Standards (LCUASS), October 1, 2002. Specifically, the variances _ pertain to unsignalized intersection spacing and corner clearance • cn between driveways/alleys and street intersections. A copy of Table > N 7-3 is provided'in Appendix A. The Gillespie Farm site plan is 0 m provided in Appendix B. z tO a No driveways intersect with CR11 or CR52 (both minor 2 arterials). The minimum intersection spacing along minor arterials Z is 460 feet. The range of separation is 460-660 feet. There will z 0 not be raised medians along either CR11 or CR52. The intersection cv d spacing exceeds 460 feet. There are two locations on CR11 and one N location on CR52, where the 660 foot separation is exceeded. None N of these locations will be detrimental to public health, welfare, and safety_ They will also not have an impact on the capital/ maintenance requirements and costs. The Gillespie Farm has an east/west collector street and a north/south collector street that bisect the site. In addition, there is a north/south collector street near the east edge of the site. All of these are designated as minor collectors. The minimum separation between intersections for a minor collector is 250 feet. There are four locations along the central NIS collector and two locations along the east NIS collector that are less than 250 feet. :j These locations are labeled A, B, C, D, E, and F on the site plan shown in Appendix B. Four of these locations (A,D,E,F) are at d. C3 Z intersections that are on the edges of the site (CR50E and CR52). w At the intersections with CR50E and CR52, the separate left -turn Z lanes are not required but may be striped as such, if that is the �= V Z desire of the City. The variance regarding intersection spacing JW will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; W p nor will it have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements 0 a of the City. r x 0 There are two other locations (B,C) along the central NIS Z collector where the separation is less than 250 feet (B-1901,C- Cc 220'). From the available site plan, this cannot be corrected H without making street location changes on the east or west sides of the NIS collector. However, the intersection spacing is large U LL enough not to cause operational concerns. This spacing will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; nor will it QC F have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements of the City. G From the available lotting plan for the Gillespie Farm, there are single family lots along the minor collector streets. The typical lot width is 50 feet with some wider lots on corners. The corner clearance for minor collector streets is 100 feet. There will be a few locations along the two N/S collector streets that will not meet this corner clearance. The lot widths are dictated by the density requirement in "City Plan." It is only the end lots along the N/S minor collector streets at the local street intersections that cannot meet the minimum corner clearance standard. Single family detached dwelling units generate approximately 10 trip ends per day and one trip end in the respective peak hours. In the morning peak hour, the trip end is an exit from a driveway. In the afternoon peak hour, the trip end is an entrance to a driveway. As was demonstrated in a previous memorandum (10/12/01), daily traffic volumes on the two collector streets that bisect the Gillespie Farm ODP will be less than 1000 vehicles .per day (vpd) . Daily traffic volumes on the eastern minor collector street will range from 3300 to 1600 vpd. Daily traffic volumes on the local streets will generally be less than 300 vpd. Traffic in the peak hours on these streets will be intermittent and low. On the bisecting collector streets, the average gaps between vehicles will be greater than 35 seconds. The probability of conflicts at/near these intersections will be minimal. Driveways should be located as far away from all of the subject intersections as possible. It is not likely that there will be more than a one vehicle queue at any of the subject intersections. Therefore, no driveway should be blocked by a vehicle on the street. As such, with reasonable driver prudence, the corner clearance variance is not detrimental the public health, welfare, and safety. There are a few locations at the intersections of the collector streets where lots are designed to be wider. Where the driveway will be located on the smaller dimensional side of those lots, the driveways must be located at the property line. This will meet the corner clearance criteria. Some end lots at the intersections of two local streets are intended to have a duplex residential product. It is also desired that the driveways to this duplex product be from both local streets. Based upon review of available site plans, this will be possible while still meeting the 50 foot minimum corner clearance for a local residential street. In conclusion, I believe that the variances to the intersection spacing and the minimum corner clearance between driveways and street intersections: Are not detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety, - Have no impact on the capital/maintenance requirements and costs. Thank you for your consideration of these variance requests. Sincerel KC Matthew J. Delich, P.E. cc Eric Bracke APPENDIX A ry E ` es e s c <o o'mo a o Z Z Q Z Z o o Vi < Q mo C m L � E o ` E $ s c o j 3 O mm OM�S 8 AmaO o a m0000 c s�s� m o Q O o � iV m U K t7NN N� mOClN flh N Z N m S m 4 z � ; q o m g itfi O EO iV0 in QO 1 1 ci tOn tON t�V Z� e 8 n E E� { C n O Q O Z.- mOm m m Em i r 0 O 0 �i0 O g0 o N I` � U� p E� D 41i vH m o� mom m m � o C C = �mmm Ie E m � 00m- Ie le lee Ipm T enm m =�f OON�00NC00000N9� mmm�n mmn-mmm-min g �g� - g� 9 moe am t�'� Ie coocbboc$$m5 Ino 1. E� -'� C G m c 5 P+m" n / 3d'� 342 mmm- fmm�fmm�f mmtmp m�G cg M • C mt0 y G=�� Ipm AE �S9ia '�I >pp p�m- Ia^ le le L� 5_@=@m'e �mn� mm`oic(omp pp�pp�=mMv cm ae> Nfm��fm��f4Gm�f�� l0 h m 9 = m m o m E To m m C� c u m m m U� Omm O a 8 a�u a iu >>ea= E ® 1 m: c`m ffi o oQY W Eq J APPENDIX B COUNTY ROAD 52 —7. --- —71 lll-� - �-- - -4 " fp7—P—rm—� 'r � F r co March 25, 2003 File: 0190LT03 co to C Mr. Dave Stringer, P.E. • o Fort Collins Engineering Department 0 P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Er 0 � 0 U b Dear Dave: • o X U This letter was prepared for the Gillespie Farm OUP to request variances to "Section 7.4 General Design Elements, Table 7-3, Access Management," as contained in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), October 1, 2002. Specifically, CD the variances pertain to unsignalized intersection spacing and o N corner clearance between driveways/alleys and street 0) intersections. A copy of Table 7-3 is provided in Appendix A. zz o The Gillespie Farm site plan is provided in Appendix B. a r = rn No driveways intersect with CR11 or CR52 (both 2-lane z Lj arterials). The minimum intersection spacing along minor 0 X0 arterials is 460 feet. The range of separation is 460-660 feet. r tl There wi1.L not be raised medians along either CR11 or CR52. All N intersection spacing exceeds 460 feet. 'There are two locations, one on CR11 and one on CR52, where the 660 foot separation is exceeded. On CR11, the separation between the first intersection south of CR52 and CR52 is approximately 700 feet. On CR52, the separation between the first and second intersections east of CR11 is approximately 820 feet. Separation greater than 660 feet require a modification of the standard, not a variance. The greater separation between intersections will not present operational concerns. None of these locations will be detrimental to public health, welfare, and safety. They will also not have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements W and costs. a _z The Gillespie Farm has an east/west collector street and a ¢ w north/south collector street that bisect the site. In addition, i there is a north/south collector street near the east edge of the V z site. All of these are designated as minor collectors. The JW minimum separation between intersections for a minor collector is W o 250 feet.. There are four locations along the central N/S Q a collector and two locations along the east N/S collector that are oless than 250 feet. These locations are labeled A, B, C, D, E, a and F on the site plan shown in Appendix B. Four of these alocations (A,D,E,F) are at intersections that are on the edges of the site (CR50E and CR52). At the intersections with CR50E and �¢ W CR52, the separate left -turn lanes are not required but may be striped as such, if that is the desire of the City. The long LL range (2022) traffic forecasts at these four locations indicate F less than or equal to 125 vehicles per hour in one direction. At Qa conservative peak hour fact -or of 0.4, the maximum number of vehicles in one direction in one minute would be five. For analysis purposes, this is one vehicle every 20 seconds. The analysis indicates a delay of 10 seconds per approach vehicle, which is less than the arrival rate. Therefore, it is concluded that the vehicle queues will not extend to the next adjacent intersection, which is approximately 200 feet from either CR52 or Country Club Road (extended). It is therefore concluded that the variance regarding intersection spacing will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; nor will it have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements of the City. There are two other locations (B,C) along the central N/S collector where the separation is less than 250 feet (B-190',C-2201). From the available site plan, this cannot be corrected without making street location changes on the east or west sides of the N/S collector. However, the intersection spacing is large enough not to cause operational concerns. The turning movements at the interior local street intersections will be lower than those at the perimeter intersections described in the previous paragraph. It is expected that at a conservative peak hour factor condition, the approach volumes would be on the order of one vehicle every 30 seconds. At this arrival rate, the probability of two or more vehicles being in the same area is very small. There is sufficient separation between intersections so that conflicts would not likely occur. Therefore, it is concluded that this spacing will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; nor will it have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements of the City. From the available lotting plan for the Gillespie Farm, there are single family lots along the minor collector streets. The typical lot width is 50 feet with some wider lots on corners. The corner clearance for minor collector streets is 100 feet. There will be a few locations along the two N/S collector streets that will not meet this corner clearance. The lot widths are dictated by the density requirement in "City Plan." It is only the end lots along the N/S minor collector streets at the local street intersections that cannot meet the minimum corner clearance standard. Single family detached dwelling units generate approximately 10 trip ends per day and one trip end in the respective peak hours. In the morning peak hour, the trip end is an exit from a driveway. In the afternoon peak hour, the trip end is an entrance to a driveway. As was demonstrated in a previous memorandum (10112101), daily traffic volumes on the two collector streets that bisect the Gillespie Farm CDP will be less than 1000 vehicles per day (vpd). Daily traffic volumes on the eastern minor collector street will range from 3300 to 1600 vpd. Daily traffic volumes on the local streets will generally be less than 300 vpd. Traffic in the peak hours on these streets will be intermittent and low. On the bisecting collector streets, the average gaps between vehicles will be greater than 20 seconds. The probability of conflicts at/near these intersections will be minimal. Driveways should be located as far away from all of the subject intersections as possible. It is not likely that there will be more than a one vehicle queue at any of the subject intersections. Therefore, no driveway should be blocked by a vehicle on the street. As such, with reasonable driver prudence, the corner clearance variance is not detrimental the public health, welfare, and safety. There are a few locations at the intersections of the collector streets where lots are designed to be wider. Where the driveway will be located on the smaller dimensional side of those lots, the driveways must be located at the property line. This will meet the corner clearance criteria. Some end lots at the intersections of two local streets are intended to have a duplex residential product_ It is also desired that the driveways to this duplex product be from both local streets. Based upon review of available site plans, this will be possible while still meeting the 50 foot minimum corner clearance for a local residential street. In conclusion, I believe that the variances to the intersection spacing and the minimum corner clearance between driveways and street intersections: Are not detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety, Have no impact on the capital/maintenance requirements and costs. Thank you for your consideration of these variance requests. Since y, Matthew J. Delich, P.E. APP-16-2002 21:17 MATTHEW J DELICH P.02 April 17, 2002 File: 0190LT01 Mr. Mike Herzig, P.E. b Fort Collins Engineering Department 6 P.O. Box 580 to Fort Collins, CO 80522-0530 � Dear Mike: C - This letter was prepared for the Gillespie Farm ODP to request a variance to "Section 7.4 General Design Elements, Table 7-3,.Access Management," as contained in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), January 2, 2001. Specifically, cD this variance pertains to the minimum corner clearance between N driveways/alleys and street intersections. a 6 is is m Table 7-3 indicates that the minimum corner clearance for a o minor collector street is 100 feet and for a local residential r C" street is 80 feet. The two streets that bisect the Gillespie z z `Farm O10P in both east/wesL and north/south directions are g .considered to be minor collectors. There is also a north/south n a minor collector, street along the east portion of the Gillespie N .Farm ODP. All other streets within the Gillespie Farm ODP are considered to be local residential streets- These classifications are in accordance with the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. The right-of-way (Row) for a minor collector street is 76 feet and for a local residential streets is 51 feet. From the available conceptual lotting plan for Gillespie .Farm ODA, the end lots are 60 feet wide. There are end lots that front on the minor collector streets (narrow dimension) that are 60 feet wide at local street intersections. With a half ROW of 25.5 feet for a local street and a lot width of 60 feet, the 100 W foot minimum corner clearance cannot be achieved. Even if the ddriveway were placed inside the far property line, the maximum z corner clearance would be approximately 80 feet. There are end lots that front on the local residential streets that are 60 feet _ - wi'deat local street intersections. At these intersections, the V SZ maximum corner clearance would be approximately 80 feet also. JW Under this circumstance, the 80 foot minimum corner clearance can W 9 be achieved. There are end lots that front on the local streets 0 F- (narrow dimension) that are 60 feet wide at minor collector street intersections. With a half ROW of 38 feet for a minor g collector street and a lot width of 60 feet, the 80 foot minimum .corner clearance can be achieved. in all of the above _cases, in driveways order to achieve the maximum corner clearance, the W �. .n would Te -forced to be just inside the far property lines- The o lot- widths are dictated by the density requirement in `City f'.r-,.....Plan:" It is only the end lots along minor collector streets at cc local street intersections that cannot meet the minimum corner Q F' clearance standard. This only occurs at a few locations. APPENDIX A E r �9 C T v • O O O Q m m N O Q Z Q Z Q Z O Z p d 3 U E a Z" 0 N n E - E `o c `m m u m m E � W W mn OYSS timQS o o mw.im o m Z N N P U 5 7 ..Mom ..Mom N w m S W `G m o m E G 3 0 0 m oS Q$ 2=v>o O o O) Q Z S m U a m J:% l7N N Z.- mOOI d N m m E Fa c O v1 e £ ZO Z� 2�N0 mom O m Z N ^ O U q O t i m p�p � � Si •L ` •L m ip�i 0� I O Ip m O O a b O Q f7 O 41 n U 3 E_ m m m Z t") N 1` = > E rw o� I m m bmEii--o--iEiiisl C C nw vmmEo_f '-1 3pmaI•oyy@NON W O g M wCei S��Ndm.O-�.O--¢ z Q ma I. If 1• c E Ec rwm.�m $a"m oao�ococHE mmm—mmttOO {{ppmmmm VmaD PL m� �-'•' g mm =mSm- I..• lo• 1.. I•oom $C yak O y{7O O VO CO e'�!� o O O O mmmm(n^mm 2Ndm��dm�-�dfmm�d�- y00NCOONCOp w._m�p�p C0�1� $—�pNR_ t' m5m O mm ff Q'Q �d ON m0�' a • �nap�V m 1- CYp m w mmy g�Gm m m�� u N w m 'W Ca jc $� mT Um?��mH �plEM c` c"pem mEc>m W>m m o tp v _ c W d c� �c�R mn �'EoEm`m mm m •vc ® �� m 7g vE900 cs m m to m,go`2 > ��i3 m m SHE e - W $ VJ—�=s�' aUU• a mom o a W "^,_, '@ G cv—a a Eo E` E �pp E5 �> EE Elm E—=m m C Em E_� m ��p >'m 9 E o�ccoo �qqo i$oEm 0 am M S _E c� $ mmm S 3�i 5 Z a vv '� 9��RLL 0 APPENDIX B No Text November 12, 2002 File: 0190LT02 00 co QMr. Mike Herzig, P.E. m Fort Collins Engineering Department o LO P.O. Box 580 o 0) Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 a � O o p Dear Mike: U rn • a This letter was prepared for the Gillespie Farm ODP to request 0 LL variances to "Section 7.4 General Design Elements, Table 7-3, Access z wManagement," as contained in the Larimer County Urban Area Street o Standards (LCUASS), October 1, 2002. Specifically, the variances _ pertain to unsignalized intersection spacing and corner clearance • cn between driveways/alleys and street intersections. A copy of Table > N 7-3 is provided'in Appendix A. The Gillespie Farm site plan is 0 m provided in Appendix B. z tO a No driveways intersect with CR11 or CR52 (both minor 2 arterials). The minimum intersection spacing along minor arterials Z is 460 feet. The range of separation is 460-660 feet. There will z 0 not be raised medians along either CR11 or CR52. The intersection cv d spacing exceeds 460 feet. There are two locations on CR11 and one N location on CR52, where the 660 foot separation is exceeded. None N of these locations will be detrimental to public health, welfare, and safety_ They will also not have an impact on the capital/ maintenance requirements and costs. The Gillespie Farm has an east/west collector street and a north/south collector street that bisect the site. In addition, there is a north/south collector street near the east edge of the site. All of these are designated as minor collectors. The minimum separation between intersections for a minor collector is 250 feet. There are four locations along the central NIS collector and two locations along the east NIS collector that are less than 250 feet. :j These locations are labeled A, B, C, D, E, and F on the site plan shown in Appendix B. Four of these locations (A,D,E,F) are at d. C3 Z intersections that are on the edges of the site (CR50E and CR52). w At the intersections with CR50E and CR52, the separate left -turn Z lanes are not required but may be striped as such, if that is the �= V Z desire of the City. The variance regarding intersection spacing JW will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; W p nor will it have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements 0 a of the City. r x 0 There are two other locations (B,C) along the central NIS Z collector where the separation is less than 250 feet (B-1901,C- Cc 220'). From the available site plan, this cannot be corrected H without making street location changes on the east or west sides of the NIS collector. However, the intersection spacing is large U LL enough not to cause operational concerns. This spacing will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; nor will it QC F have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements of the City. G From the available lotting plan for the Gillespie Farm, there are single family lots along the minor collector streets. The typical lot width is 50 feet with some wider lots on corners. The corner clearance for minor collector streets is 100 feet. There will be a few locations along the two N/S collector streets that will not meet this corner clearance. The lot widths are dictated by the density requirement in "City Plan." It is only the end lots along the N/S minor collector streets at the local street intersections that cannot meet the minimum corner clearance standard. Single family detached dwelling units generate approximately 10 trip ends per day and one trip end in the respective peak hours. In the morning peak hour, the trip end is an exit from a driveway. In the afternoon peak hour, the trip end is an entrance to a driveway. As was demonstrated in a previous memorandum (10/12/01), daily traffic volumes on the two collector streets that bisect the Gillespie Farm ODP will be less than 1000 vehicles .per day (vpd) . Daily traffic volumes on the eastern minor collector street will range from 3300 to 1600 vpd. Daily traffic volumes on the local streets will generally be less than 300 vpd. Traffic in the peak hours on these streets will be intermittent and low. On the bisecting collector streets, the average gaps between vehicles will be greater than 35 seconds. The probability of conflicts at/near these intersections will be minimal. Driveways should be located as far away from all of the subject intersections as possible. It is not likely that there will be more than a one vehicle queue at any of the subject intersections. Therefore, no driveway should be blocked by a vehicle on the street. As such, with reasonable driver prudence, the corner clearance variance is not detrimental the public health, welfare, and safety. There are a few locations at the intersections of the collector streets where lots are designed to be wider. Where the driveway will be located on the smaller dimensional side of those lots, the driveways must be located at the property line. This will meet the corner clearance criteria. Some end lots at the intersections of two local streets are intended to have a duplex residential product. It is also desired that the driveways to this duplex product be from both local streets. Based upon review of available site plans, this will be possible while still meeting the 50 foot minimum corner clearance for a local residential street. In conclusion, I believe that the variances to the intersection spacing and the minimum corner clearance between driveways and street intersections: Are not detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety, - Have no impact on the capital/maintenance requirements and costs. Thank you for your consideration of these variance requests. Sincerel KC Matthew J. Delich, P.E. cc Eric Bracke APPENDIX A ry E ` es e s c <o o'mo a o Z Z Q Z Z o o Vi < Q mo C m L � E o ` E $ s c o j 3 O mm OM�S 8 AmaO o a m0000 c s�s� m o Q O o � iV m U K t7NN N� mOClN flh N Z N m S m 4 z � ; q o m g itfi O EO iV0 in QO 1 1 ci tOn tON t�V Z� e 8 n E E� { C n O Q O Z.- mOm m m Em i r 0 O 0 �i0 O g0 o N I` � U� p E� D 41i vH m o� mom m m � o C C = �mmm Ie E m � 00m- Ie le lee Ipm T enm m =�f OON�00NC00000N9� mmm�n mmn-mmm-min g �g� - g� 9 moe am t�'� Ie coocbboc$$m5 Ino 1. E� -'� C G m c 5 P+m" n / 3d'� 342 mmm- fmm�fmm�f mmtmp m�G cg M • C mt0 y G=�� Ipm AE �S9ia '�I >pp p�m- Ia^ le le L� 5_@=@m'e �mn� mm`oic(omp pp�pp�=mMv cm ae> Nfm��fm��f4Gm�f�� l0 h m 9 = m m o m E To m m C� c u m m m U� Omm O a 8 a�u a iu >>ea= E ® 1 m: c`m ffi o oQY W Eq J APPENDIX B COUNTY ROAD 52 —7. --- —71 lll-� - �-- - -4 " fp7—P—rm—� 'r � F APR-16-2002 21:18 MATTHEW J DELICH P.03 Single family detached dwelling units generate approximately 10 trip ends per day and one trip end in the respective peak hours. In the morning ;peak hour, the trip end is an exit from a driveway. In the afternoon peak hour, the trip end is an entrance to a driveway. As was demonstrated in a previous memorandum (10/12/01), daily traffic volumes on the two collector streets that bisect the Gillespie Farm ODP will be less than 1000 vehicles per day (vpd). Daily traffic volumes on the eastern minor collector street will range from 3300 to 1600 vpd. Daily traffic volumes on the local streets will generally be less than 300 vpd. Traffic in the peak hours on these streets will be intermittent and low. On the bisecting collector streets, the average gaps between vehicles will be greater than 35 seconds. The probability of conflicts at/near intersections will be minimal. Driveways should be located as far away from all of the subject intersections as possible. There should be no more than a one vehicle queue at any of the subject intersections. Therefore, no driveway should be blocked by a vehicle on the street. As such, with reasonable driver prudence, the corner clearance variance is not detrimental the public health, welfare, and safety. These variances will not have a negative impact on the capital and maintenance requirements or the capital and maintenance costs to the City. In conclusion, I believe that tho variances to the minimum corner clearance between driveways and street intersections are: Not detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety, Has no impact on the capital/maintenance requirements and costs. Thank you for your Sincerely, PJate7Yex' J D�3ch, consideration of these variance requests. P.E. TOTAL P.03 r co March 25, 2003 File: 0190LT03 co to C Mr. Dave Stringer, P.E. • o Fort Collins Engineering Department 0 P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Er 0 � 0 U b Dear Dave: • o X U This letter was prepared for the Gillespie Farm OUP to request variances to "Section 7.4 General Design Elements, Table 7-3, Access Management," as contained in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), October 1, 2002. Specifically, CD the variances pertain to unsignalized intersection spacing and o N corner clearance between driveways/alleys and street 0) intersections. A copy of Table 7-3 is provided in Appendix A. zz o The Gillespie Farm site plan is provided in Appendix B. a r = rn No driveways intersect with CR11 or CR52 (both 2-lane z Lj arterials). The minimum intersection spacing along minor 0 X0 arterials is 460 feet. The range of separation is 460-660 feet. r tl There wi1.L not be raised medians along either CR11 or CR52. All N intersection spacing exceeds 460 feet. 'There are two locations, one on CR11 and one on CR52, where the 660 foot separation is exceeded. On CR11, the separation between the first intersection south of CR52 and CR52 is approximately 700 feet. On CR52, the separation between the first and second intersections east of CR11 is approximately 820 feet. Separation greater than 660 feet require a modification of the standard, not a variance. The greater separation between intersections will not present operational concerns. None of these locations will be detrimental to public health, welfare, and safety. They will also not have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements W and costs. a _z The Gillespie Farm has an east/west collector street and a ¢ w north/south collector street that bisect the site. In addition, i there is a north/south collector street near the east edge of the V z site. All of these are designated as minor collectors. The JW minimum separation between intersections for a minor collector is W o 250 feet.. There are four locations along the central N/S Q a collector and two locations along the east N/S collector that are oless than 250 feet. These locations are labeled A, B, C, D, E, a and F on the site plan shown in Appendix B. Four of these alocations (A,D,E,F) are at intersections that are on the edges of the site (CR50E and CR52). At the intersections with CR50E and �¢ W CR52, the separate left -turn lanes are not required but may be striped as such, if that is the desire of the City. The long LL range (2022) traffic forecasts at these four locations indicate F less than or equal to 125 vehicles per hour in one direction. At Qa conservative peak hour fact -or of 0.4, the maximum number of vehicles in one direction in one minute would be five. For analysis purposes, this is one vehicle every 20 seconds. The analysis indicates a delay of 10 seconds per approach vehicle, which is less than the arrival rate. Therefore, it is concluded that the vehicle queues will not extend to the next adjacent intersection, which is approximately 200 feet from either CR52 or Country Club Road (extended). It is therefore concluded that the variance regarding intersection spacing will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; nor will it have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements of the City. There are two other locations (B,C) along the central N/S collector where the separation is less than 250 feet (B-190',C-2201). From the available site plan, this cannot be corrected without making street location changes on the east or west sides of the N/S collector. However, the intersection spacing is large enough not to cause operational concerns. The turning movements at the interior local street intersections will be lower than those at the perimeter intersections described in the previous paragraph. It is expected that at a conservative peak hour factor condition, the approach volumes would be on the order of one vehicle every 30 seconds. At this arrival rate, the probability of two or more vehicles being in the same area is very small. There is sufficient separation between intersections so that conflicts would not likely occur. Therefore, it is concluded that this spacing will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; nor will it have an impact on the capital/maintenance requirements of the City. From the available lotting plan for the Gillespie Farm, there are single family lots along the minor collector streets. The typical lot width is 50 feet with some wider lots on corners. The corner clearance for minor collector streets is 100 feet. There will be a few locations along the two N/S collector streets that will not meet this corner clearance. The lot widths are dictated by the density requirement in "City Plan." It is only the end lots along the N/S minor collector streets at the local street intersections that cannot meet the minimum corner clearance standard. Single family detached dwelling units generate approximately 10 trip ends per day and one trip end in the respective peak hours. In the morning peak hour, the trip end is an exit from a driveway. In the afternoon peak hour, the trip end is an entrance to a driveway. As was demonstrated in a previous memorandum (10112101), daily traffic volumes on the two collector streets that bisect the Gillespie Farm CDP will be less than 1000 vehicles per day (vpd). Daily traffic volumes on the eastern minor collector street will range from 3300 to 1600 vpd. Daily traffic volumes on the local streets will generally be less than 300 vpd. Traffic in the peak hours on these streets will be intermittent and low. On the bisecting collector streets, the average gaps between vehicles will be greater than 20 seconds. The probability of conflicts at/near these intersections will be minimal. Driveways should be located as far away from all of the subject intersections as possible. It is not likely that there will be more than a one vehicle queue at any of the subject intersections. Therefore, no driveway should be blocked by a vehicle on the street. As such, with reasonable driver prudence, the corner clearance variance is not detrimental the public health, welfare, and safety. There are a few locations at the intersections of the collector streets where lots are designed to be wider. Where the driveway will be located on the smaller dimensional side of those lots, the driveways must be located at the property line. This will meet the corner clearance criteria. Some end lots at the intersections of two local streets are intended to have a duplex residential product_ It is also desired that the driveways to this duplex product be from both local streets. Based upon review of available site plans, this will be possible while still meeting the 50 foot minimum corner clearance for a local residential street. In conclusion, I believe that the variances to the intersection spacing and the minimum corner clearance between driveways and street intersections: Are not detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety, Have no impact on the capital/maintenance requirements and costs. Thank you for your consideration of these variance requests. Since y, Matthew J. Delich, P.E. APPENDIX A E r �9 C T v • O O O Q m m N O Q Z Q Z Q Z O Z p d 3 U E a Z" 0 N n E - E `o c `m m u m m E � W W mn OYSS timQS o o mw.im o m Z N N P U 5 7 ..Mom ..Mom N w m S W `G m o m E G 3 0 0 m oS Q$ 2=v>o O o O) Q Z S m U a m J:% l7N N Z.- mOOI d N m m E Fa c O v1 e £ ZO Z� 2�N0 mom O m Z N ^ O U q O t i m p�p � � Si •L ` •L m ip�i 0� I O Ip m O O a b O Q f7 O 41 n U 3 E_ m m m Z t") N 1` = > E rw o� I m m bmEii--o--iEiiisl C C nw vmmEo_f '-1 3pmaI•oyy@NON W O g M wCei S��Ndm.O-�.O--¢ z Q ma I. If 1• c E Ec rwm.�m $a"m oao�ococHE mmm—mmttOO {{ppmmmm VmaD PL m� �-'•' g mm =mSm- I..• lo• 1.. I•oom $C yak O y{7O O VO CO e'�!� o O O O mmmm(n^mm 2Ndm��dm�-�dfmm�d�- y00NCOONCOp w._m�p�p C0�1� $—�pNR_ t' m5m O mm ff Q'Q �d ON m0�' a • �nap�V m 1- CYp m w mmy g�Gm m m�� u N w m 'W Ca jc $� mT Um?��mH �plEM c` c"pem mEc>m W>m m o tp v _ c W d c� �c�R mn �'EoEm`m mm m •vc ® �� m 7g vE900 cs m m to m,go`2 > ��i3 m m SHE e - W $ VJ—�=s�' aUU• a mom o a W "^,_, '@ G cv—a a Eo E` E �pp E5 �> EE Elm E—=m m C Em E_� m ��p >'m 9 E o�ccoo �qqo i$oEm 0 am M S _E c� $ mmm S 3�i 5 Z a vv '� 9��RLL 0 APPENDIX B No Text izCONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF Ct NE'II/IENTS City of fort Collins MEETING DATE: August 7, 2000 ITEM: Gillespie Farm Overall Development Plan APPLICANT: Mr. Tom Dougherty 220 East Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 LAND USE DATA: Overall Development Plan request to develop a 160 acre property, located on the southeast corner of County Road 11 and County Road 52 The comments listed below are conceptual comments based upon a preliminary plan provided by the applicant at the August 7, 2000 conceptual review meeting, The applicant is expected to apply all pertinent Development Manual, Land Use Code, Mountain Vista Subarea Plan, and Street Design Standards in the design. The comments are to provide a reasonable amount of direction prior to the submittal of a development plan. This document shall not preclude staff from making additional comments in the future in regard to overall layout of the site. DEPARTMENTAL CONTACTS Current Planning Ron Fuchs 970.221-6750 Zoning Department Peter Barnes 970,221.6760 Engineering Department Tim Blandford 970.221.6605 Street Oversizing Coordinator Matt Baker 970,224.6108 City Traffic Engineer Eric Bracke 970.224.6062 Poudre Fire Authority Ron Gonzales 970.221,6570 Stormwater Utilities Glen Schlueter 970.221,6681 Stormwater Utilities Basil Harridan 970.221.6681 Water & Sewer Utilities Roger Buffington 970,221.6681 Natural Resources Kim Kreimeyer 970.221.6750 Natural Resources Margit Hentschel 970.224.6179 Light and Power Monica Moore 970.221,6700 Historic Preservation Karen MacWilliams 970.221.6376 Transportation Services Kathleen Reavis 970.224,6140 Transportation Services Mark Jackson 970.416.2029 Transportation Services Tom Reiff 970,416.2040 Parks and Recreation Craig Foreman 970.221.6367 Advance Planning Pete Wray 970.221.6376 COMMENTS: 1. The Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. The site is located in the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District and the project will be regulated under the Land Use Code (LUC) and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. iO11AII'VIIT PL.ANA IN(, AN D LN VI RO%NILN IA 1.5EIZ% I C Es Al I'I( P:; F LM! "[ b, The proposed Overall Development Plan land development will be subject to a Type 2 review. c. This development must comply with all applicable General Development Standards as set forth in Article 3 of the Land Use Code, including but not limited to the requirements for vehicle and bicycle parking, parking, building setbacks, landscaping, fence screening, et cetera. These development standards are set forth in the following divisions: 1) Division 3.1 General Provisions 2) Division 3.2 Site Planning and Design Standards 3) Division 3.3 Engineering Standards 4) Division 3.4 Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards 5) Division 3.5 Building Standards 6) Division 3.6 Transportation and Circulation 7) Division 3.7 Compact Urban Growth Standards 8) Division 3.8 Supplementary Regulations All sections of LUC Division 4.4 of the Land Use Code need to be complied with including 4.4(B) Permitted Uses; 4.4(C) Prohibited Uses: 4.4(D) Land Use Standards (1) Density (2) Mix of Housing (3) Neighborhood Centers; and, (E) Development Standards. The Mountain Vista Subarea Plan shall be complied with. 2. Stormwater Utility offered the following comments: a. This site is in the Cooper Slough drainage basin where there are no fees and no adopted master drainage plan. The site is in inventory grid #12C. b. The standard drainage and erosion control reports and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Colorado. c. There isn't a public outfall system so "temporary" onsite or offsite retention for the increased water quantity has been allowed. However, the retention volume must be two times the increased runoff volume. The retention pond must have a way to be drained either by pumping or percolation. The rrigation ditch company will have to accept the water and approve the plans. d. The No. 8 ditch is owned by the Windsor Reservoir Canal Company which flows into the Eaton Ditch which is owned by the Larimer and Weld Canal Company. These companies have been reluctant to accept developed flows so I suggest early contact with them. e. Extended detention is required to treat runoff. f. The drainage master planning effort will begin this year so it may be late 2001 or early 2002 before it is completed. It appears the No. 8 ditch will be part of the system as far as we know at this time since it was shown in previous drainage master planing efforts. So an outfall to it would be needed but may have a restricted capacity or might have to be blocked temporarily. The ditch companies and Stormwater need to reach an agreement on the system 3. The Engineering Department offered the following comments: The standard utility plan and development agreement requirements must be submitted to the City for review and approval. Street oversizing fees will apply to this development. The street oversizing fees will be as follows: • Residential - $1,480 per dwelling uniUsingle family • Residential - $1,021 per dwelling unit/multi family c. Please contact Matt Baker for additional information regarding the actual fees related to your proposed development and potential cost sharing of County Road 11 improvements. d. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) will be required with your Overall Development Plan (ODP) submittal. To coordinate the parameters of this study, please contact Eric Bracke, Traffic Engineer, and Kathleen Reavis, Transportation Planner. e. Roadway improvements to City standards along the property's frontage are required including all internal streets. f. Right-of-way dedication will be required adjacent to County Road 11 (minor arterial) and County Road 52 (minor arterial) and for all internal and abutting collector, connector and local public streets. g. Extend collectors (EW & NS) through the site per Master Street Plan. h. Provide street intra- and inter -neighborhood connections per code public access requirements (660 feet spacing). i. Show all pedestrian connections through Overall Development Plan. j. Off -site roadway improvements to nearest improved arterial street. k. The applicant/developer shall acquire all necessary access corridors/easements. I. More specific comments will follow upon formal submittal of application for Overall Development Plan and subsequent Project Development Plan, 4. Transportation Planning offers the following: a. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is required with your Overall Development Plan (ODP) submittal. To coordinate the parameters of this study, please contact Eric Bracke, the City's Traffic Engineer, and Kathleen Reavis, the City's Transportation Planner, b. All street, pedestrian, trail, bike corridors, mid -block connections and joint access/cross access easements shall be accommodated and connect to adjacent development and facilities per Land Use Code standards and criteria. 5. Natural Resources offers the following comments: a. Delineate all natural features, as defined in the Land Use Code. b. Accommodate potential trail access corridors through Parks and Recreation Planning. c. You will need to file a fugitive dust control permit and coordinate this through the Larimer County Environmental Health Department. Please contact them directly. 6. Light and Power offers the following comments: a. Power is available from County Road 52. b. Light and Power has plans to install electric facilities along the west property line of this development adjacent to County Road 11. c. Will need to determine if additional right-of-way will be acquired. d. C-1 Forms will need to be provided to evaluate power needs for the community center, neighborhood park and other potential use(s). e. The development will pay for all temporary services. f. The applicant/developer shall acquire all necessary access corridors/easements. g. The normal electric development charges will apply to this project. h. Coordinate all transformer, meter and utility locations with Light and Power. i. Utility coordination meeting will be needed to resolve potential utility siting issues. 7. Historic Preservation offers the following comments: a. Existing structures need to be reviewed through the demo/review process as required by Land Use Code 3.4.7 by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Review will include the history of the property, time frame of erection of all structures; such as, barns, outbuildings, house, wells, bunker silos, and et cetera. Please provide photos of all elevations (min. four sides) of all respective structures and a picture the overall farm site. b. Please provide a general plot plan of all structures with a verifiable scale. c. Please provide a narrative of chronology of current and previous landowners. d. The earliest potential date of review by the Landmarks Preservation Commission may be August 23, 2000. e. Coordinate all preservation concerns with Historic Preservation. 8. Advance Planning offers the following: a. The application shall comply with the Land Use Code and Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. c. The street system needs to provide multiple direct east/west and south/north alignments through the project in order to comply with Land Use Code Divisions 2.3, 3.6, and 4.4. d. The plan needs to be revised in order to comply with the neighborhood center provisions of the Land Use Code. 9. The Current Planning Department offers the following comments: a. This development request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule that is available in the Current Planning Department office, The development review fees are due at the time of submittal of the required Project Development Plan and compliance phases of the development review by City staff and affected outside reviewing agencies. b. The site is located in the LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District and the project will be regulated under the Land Use Code (LUC). c. Street Concerns: 1. Sections 23, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3 and 4.4 imply that it is in the public's best interest to have neighborhoods which transition and link to surrounding neighborhoods with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks street system with multiple direct street connections at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet. LUC Section 3.6.3(A)-(F) requires that the local street system provide multiple direct connections with a street system pattern of through streets to facilitate traffic movements. Streets shall connect to other streets within a development and to existing and future streets outside the development on its north, south, east and west boundaries to serve parks, schools or other public and private lands within the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Factoring a road system on the north, south, west and east property lines, the street system needs to provide fcr both intra- and inter -neighborhood connections to knit developments together (i.e. street connections to future streets and future developable lands and internal to the property as required by LUC Section 2.3). 3. Accommodations shall be made to tie the street sidewalk system into all trail systems. Show all pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle movement corridors through Overall Development Plan (LUC Sections 2.3.2(H)(5), 3.6.3(F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). 1. Neighborhood Center, Parks and Open Space.