Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINVERNESS INNOVATION PARK - ODP - 30-09 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)of City Collins PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS submittal requirement checklists can be found online at http://fcqov.com/currentplanninq/submittals.php. No comment needed. 3. A decision (approval, approval with conditions or denial) will be made by the City's Administrative Hearing Officer a Public Hearing. If your Project Development Plan is approved at the Public Hearing, you will be required to submit Final Plans for review which will ultimately be recorded. No comment needed. 4. Please be aware that you will owe both the Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) and the Development Review Fee with your PDP application submittal. The Development Review Fee Schedule online at http://fcgov.com/currentplanninq/submittals.php. Final Development Review and Transportation Development Review Fees will be due when you submit your Final Plans after the public hearing. Understood, fees are included with this submittal. 5. Your Project Development Plan will be evaluated per the standards set forth in the Land Use Code (LUC) and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Understood and our plans and designs do comply. 6. The entire Fort Collins Land Use Code is available for your review on the web at http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin,htm. No comment needed. 7. This development proposal is subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, specifically, but not limited to: • Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection • Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking • Division 3.5 — Building Standards (including project compatibility, building height review and commercial building standards) • Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards • Division 4.19 — Community Commercial North College District • Division 4.20 — Community Commercial Poudre River District Understood, our submittal complies or we have specifically requested variances for any items that do not comply. 8. A neighborhood meeting is typically not required for Type 1 (Administrative) proposals. However, because of the scale of this project, and the fact that several components of the proposal may go before the Planning and Zoning Board and/or City Council, a neighborhood meeting should be held early in the development process. Please contact me and I will coordinate a meeting date and location. You will need to provide my office with a list of Affected Property Owner (APO) labels for the meeting notification letters. Neighborhood meeting was held on November 6, 2008. 14 of F6rtolt' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS Historic Preservation staff regarding rehabilitation of house is advised (for appropriateness and funding incentives). Re -use of outbuilding is preferred, but not required. Landscape screening between house and new construction can decrease visual impact to house. Our submittal addresses this issue. The first phase building is significantly separated from the property line and the house. This phase should not be an issue. The second phase building is the one that would be most impacted by this requirement. We have identified criteria for the design of this building and would look for feedback to determine if that criterion sufficiently meets the LUC's requirements. 2. Structures as 213 E. Vine were determined not individually eligible for local landmarking in 2006. No comment required. ADVANCE PLANNING/URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Contact Info: Christina Vincent, 416-2294, cvincent(c_fcgov.com 1. The process for extending the URA North College project area boundary would take an action by the URA Board (Council). Preliminarily, this is being evaluated to the East of this property however, not currently including any property to the South of Vine Drive. The proposal would need to be presented to the North College CAG for review and recommendation and then a revision of the Urban Renewal Plan boundary and existing conditions study complete for the [proposed expanded area. A public meeting will be held to provide adequate timing for public comment. The findings are then presented to Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation and ultimately to the URA Board for approval. This process takes a couple months from start to finish if all goes as planned. We are not looking to extend the URA to the south. 2. Additionally, there may be some additional concerns if the parcels are already in the DDA boundaries, the DDA has first right of refusal to the tax increment. This means (best case scenario) the URA and DDA enter into an Inter -governmental agreement regarding the TIF and work out a share back option. (This is not impossible but adds time to the overall project expansion.) We are not looking to extend the URA to the south. CURRENT PLANNING Contact Info: Shelby Sommer, 416-2138, ssommer(cDfcgov.com 1. For a step-by-step guide to the Development Review process, please visit the Development Review Guide online at: http://fcgov.com/drq. No comment needed. 2. You will need to submit a Project Development Plan (PDP) for the City to review. This PDP will be evaluated through the Development Review Process. City of Fort Collins Departments along with other external agencies will have the opportunity to review and comment on your Project Development Plan. Application forms and PDP 13 of F6rtCollins PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Contact Info: Ward Stanford, 221-6820, wstanford(cDfcgov.com 1. Current traffic volumes on Vine are at the low end of a minor arterial. Traffic does not believe it would be prudent to reclassify Vine to a lower classification until traffic volumes are also reduced to the lower classification. Current design anticipates the road staying a Minor Arterial. Any future change to a lower classification can be accommodated. 2. Current volume studies were taken west of Lemay. Additional volume studies could be performed on Vine in the area between College and Linden to see what the volumes are in that segment of Vine. If they are less, the applicant could request a reclassification via the process to change the Master Street Plan. Please understand the request could be approved or denied. Understood. We may consider, but at this time our plans do not anticipate any reclassification of the road. 3. Traffic Operations believes the layout with buildings and parking on both sides of Vine is a better plan. This is due to reducing the amount of pedestrians needing to cross Vine each day. Our plans anticipate buildings on both sides of the road. 4. Traffic Operations can not state whether it would approve a crosswalk at this developments location without further study and the decision as to which plan will be submitted. We are not requesting that at this time. 5. In general, Traffic Op's views a crosswalk at Linden and Vine as a good possible location. No comment. ENGINEERING Contact Info: Marc Virata, 221-6605, mvirata(cDfcgov.com 1. General comments made at the conceptual review for the project still apply. 2. Please note a slight clarification to #12 in the meeting minute notes from the 7/18 meeting -- an offsite easement for the pond does not negate the responsibility of frontage improvements (cash in lieu can be considered instead of constructing). Not applicable as we are platting the detention pond area. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Contact Info: Alyson McGee, 221-6597, amcgee(a)_fcgov.com 1. The site at 232 E. Vine has historic significance as the former Inverness Horse Farm. A formal determination of eligibility is needed from the Director of Advance Planning and Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission. The house is likely individually eligible for local landmarking. The outbuilding likely lacks sufficient integrity/significance for individual landmarking, but could be landmarked in association with house if desired by development team. Further consultation with 12 of F6rtc`' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS • Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not farther than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter • Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not farther than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter • Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not farther than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 97UFC 901.2.2.2 Understood and will comply. 5. SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: This proposed buildings shall be equipped with approved, automatic fire -sprinkler systems. Understood and will comply 6. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: Fire department connections shall be installed remote from the buildings, and located on the street or fire lane side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. If possible, a fire hydrant shall be located within 100 feet of the FDC. PFA Bureau Policy. Understood and will comply 7. FIRE LINE REQUIREMENT: Buildings that are required to be fire sprinklered shall have a minimum 6-inch fire line unless hydraulic calculations can support a smaller fire line. Understood and will comply. 8. KNOX BOX REQUIRED: Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC 902.4; PFA BUREAU POLICY 88-20 Understood and will comply. 9. STANDPIPES AND FIRE PUMP: Buildings four or more stories in height are required to be equipped with firefighting standpipes in every stairwell. The standpipe system must be capable of supplying a minimum 100 psi to the top floor; an approved fire pump may be required to obtain this minimum pressure. IFC 905.3.1 Understood and will comply — currently no buildings are taller than 3 stories. 10.STAIRWELL SIGNAGE: Approved stairwell identification signs shall be posted at each floor level in all enclosed stairways in buildings four or more stories in height. 97UFC1210.4 and Appendix I-C Understood and will comply. ELECTRIC UTILITY Contact Info: Doug Martine, 221-6700, utilities((:Dfcgov.com 1. Existing underground electric is along Vine Dr. Developer will need to coordinate power requirements, facility locations, and electric development charges with Light & Power Engineering. Understood and will comply. 11 �`'�of F6rtCollins PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS 5. construction of a trail or pedestrian walkway that will provide public access for educational or recreational purposes provided that the trail or walkway is compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature; and 6. construction or installation of recreation features or public park elements, provided that such features or elements are compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature." Our current plans have been coordinated with the City's Environmental Staff and will comply with these requirements. POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY Contact Info: Carle Dann, 416-2869, cdann(a)poudre-fire.org 1. ADDRESS NUMERALS: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). 97UFC901.4.4. Understood and will comply. Acknowledged 2. REQUIRED ACCESS: Afire lane maybe required. Fire lanes shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: • Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. • Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. • Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. • Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane (30 feet for buildings three or more stories in height). If a fire lane cannot be provided, the building shall be fire sprinklered. 97UFC 901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1 We have discussed this plan with the Poudre Fire Authority and are in compliance with their requirements. 3. TURNING RADII: Minimum turning radii for emergency -response apparatus on any fire apparatus roadway is 25 feet inside, 50 feet outside. UFC 902.2.2.3 Refer to site plan. Acknowledged 4. WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: 10 F�rof t` Collins PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS 3. Existing water services to these properties include: 3/4-inch to 213 Vine, 3/4-inch to 408 Vine and 3/4-inch to 500 Vine. No comment required 4. Development fees and water rights will be due at time of building permit. Credit will be given for existing services where accounts were established and can be applied on the property where the service currently exists. Understood, no other comments. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Contact Info: Dana Leavitt, 221-6143, dleavitt(o)fcgov.com 1. Where the quantitative buffer cannot be achieved then the qualitative standards in Section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use code (LUC) will be applied to the buffer along the Lake Canal. In this case, if the proposed development footprint does not exceed the existing footprint, the applicant will be able to apply the buffer zone standards. We have met with the City's Environmental staff and agreed to a direction for this buffer. Our plans reflect those agreements. 2. Since the south parcel zoning precludes locating a structure of more than one story next to a natural feature buffer, placing the parking in proximity to the buffer is the preferred option. Agree and that is our current plan. 3. Setbacks from Gustav Swanson natural Area actually fall under natural feature buffers. The quantitative buffer from the Coy ditch and associated ponds is 50'. As with the case of the Lake Canal buffer, a smaller buffer will be acceptable using the quantitative standards in Section 3.4.1(E)(1). The Natural Areas staff is willing to work with the applicant to develop a mitigation plan for the natural area that reflects the requirements in said section of the LUC. We have worked on this with the City's Environmental Staff and our plans reflect the agreements made and the requirements for this area. 4. In regards to allowable uses within a buffer zone, per Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the LUC, "No disturbance shall occur within any buffer zone and no person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation within natural habitats or features including without limitation lakes, ponds, stream corridors and wetlands, except as provided in subsection c below;" Subsection c states: "The decision maker may allow disturbance or construction activity within the buffer zone for the following limited purposes: 1. mitigation of development activities; 2. restoration of previously disturbed or degraded areas or planned enhancement projects to benefit the natural area or feature; 3. emergency public safety activities; 4. utility installations when such activities and installations cannot reasonably be located outside the buffer zone or other nearby areas of development; 9 of FF16-rt PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS 3. The CCN property is subject to compliance with the applicable standards and guidelines of the North College Avenue Corridor Plan. Acknowledged. 4. A building on the CCR lot must be stepped down to 1 story in height where it directly abuts any natural area protection buffer. Acknowledged. 5. A parking lot by itself on the CCR site (Option 1) doesn't comply with the parking location standard in Sec. 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2). Our plans have changed and we are no longer proposing that option. 6. Number of handicap parking stalls provided must comply with number required per Sec. 3.2.2(K)(5). We will comply. 7. Parking lots are generally required to be on the same lot as the building for which they are intended to serve. The Code does allow the City to approve a remote lot, i.e. the lot on the south side of Vine in Option 1. However, a walk light or some other device may be required in order to ensure that people can safely cross Vine Drive. Our plans have changed and we are no longer proposing that option. Acknowledged STORMWATER UTILITY Contact Info: Glen Schlueter, 224-6065, gschlueter(a)fcgov.com 1. In general all the previous comments still apply and the following is additional information discussed at the PDR on 08-22-08. 2. The applicant mentioned that there can be flooding on the south side of Vine Dr., due to the Coy ditch culvert under the railroad backing up water. The detention/retention shown should help mitigate that situation during a storm event so that may be a benefit to the owners of the Coy ditch that could help in negotiations with them. However if the culvert plugs when the source of water is from the diversion off of the river there is no benefit to them. If another release for the water is provided or if there is a commitment to clear the culvert under the railroad, that should be something the ditch company could benefit from as well as this proposal especially the option with a building on the south side of Vine Dr. We are proposing infiltration in the detention pond which has been coordinated with the City's Storm Water staff. WATER & WASTEWATER Contact Info: Roger Buffington, 221-6854, rbuffington(a.fcgov.com 1. Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in the area include: 6-inch water main and 21-inch sanitary sewer in Vine. No comment required. 2. Water and sewer services which extend onto these properties must be used (if properly sized) or abandoned at the main. Understood and will comply 0 ,.moof t` Collins PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS 11.The Flood plain Admin contact for this project is Marsha Hilmes- Robinson, 224-6036. Our plans are in compliance with these requirements. 10. We would like to get confirmation that Vine Drive can and will be downgraded to something less than an Arterial classification and what we need to do to have that implemented concurrent with our development. Ward Stanford: Current traffic volumes on Vine are at the low end of a minor arterial. Traffic staff does not believe it would be prudent to reclassify Vine to a lower classification until traffic volumes are also reduced to the lower classification. Current volume studies were taken west of Lemay. Additional volume studies could be performed on Vine in the area between College and Linden to see what the volumes are in that segment of Vine. If they are less, the applicant could request a reclassification via the process to change the Master Street Plan. Please understand the request could be approved or denied. Our plans anticipate that Vine will remain a Minor Arterial. If it were to change to a Collector status we can accommodate that change. GENERAL COMMENTS: The following departmental agencies have offered comments for this proposal based two alternative plans and project narrative which were presented to the review team: ZONING Contact Info: Peter Barnes, 416-2355, pbames(@fcqov.com 1. The office/lab uses in the CCN are a Type 1 public hearing. The office in the CCR is also a Type 1, but the CCR doesn't allow lab uses as a principal use. If the lab space of the RM12 building is determined to be a principal use, then that user isn't allowed in the zone, except that a recent code revision may allow the addition of the use to this specific site (Section 1.3.4 of the LUC). We are not proposing lab uses on the south parcel (CCR zoning) those buildings will be office or possibly office warehouse type uses. The RM12 lab space is a very small component of the space; less than 10% of the building's square feet. Lab space is wet lab. 2. Buildings over 40' tall are subject to the Building Height Review requirements in Sec. 3.5.1(G). Maximum height allowed in CCN zone is 4 stories. Maximum height allowed in CCR is 3 stories. The proposed 4 story building in Option 2 would require a modification. Our current plans do not anticipate any structure higher than 4 stories in the CCN and 3 stories in the CCR. Any structure over 40 will comply with the requirements of Section 3.5.1(G) as noted. See attached. 7 of F6rt�Coll' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS house. The other Parcel to the west on the north side of Vine Drive is primarily in the Poudre River 500-year floodplain. Acknowledged. 2. A remodel to the existing house that is to be converted to office space is subject to the substantial improvement requirements (If the structure is improved more than 50% of its value, then it will be required to be elevated or flood proofed 2 ft above the 100-year flood level). If the house is historically designated, then it may qualify for a variance to the substantial improvement requirements. Itemized cost lists of improvements and a valuation of the existing house (excluding land value) is required to make the substantial improvement determination. Not applicable 3. Any new non-residential structures in the Poudre River 100-year floodplain must be elevated or floodproofed 2 ft. above the flood level. Acknowledged 4. No new residential or mixed -use structures are allowed in the Poudre River 100-year floodplain. Acknowledged 5. No new life -safety, emergency response or hazardous materials critical facilities are allowed in the Poudre River 100-year floodplain. Acknowledged 6. No new life -safety or emergency response critical facilities are allowed in the Poudre River 500-year floodplain. Hazardous materials critical facilities are allowed in the 500-year floodplain, but it is recommended they be protected to the 500-year flood level. Acknowledged 7. New non-residential structures in the 500-year floodplain are not required to be elevated or floodproofed per City Code, but it is highly recommended. Acknowledged 8. A floodplain use permit is required for any work (remodel, new building, parking lot, detention pond, landscaping, etc.) that is proposed in the 100-year floodplain. A separate permit is required for each site element. The floodplain use permit fee is $25. Acknowledged 9. Chapter 10 of City Code contains all of the floodplain regulations. A Quick Guide to the Poudre River regulations is available on our website. Acknowledged 10. Floodplain development review checklists, floodplain use permit, Quick Guide and other forms are available on our website at http://www.fcgov.com/stormwater/fp-forms.php Acknowledged n Forof t Collins PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS There is presently no required infiltration rate or factor of safety for an infiltration rate. This is to be determined by Geotechnical Engineering Company such as CTL / Thompson which prepared the information in the submittal package. We have coordinated this element with both the City's Environmental and Stormwater Departments. Our plans reflect agreements made and a design that meets the City's criteria. 6. We'd like to understand, from the City's perspective, the options and trade-off allowed for the Lake Canal ditch buffer on the north parcel. It is important to pin this down so we know what boundaries we have to work with for the footprint of the buildings. Dana Leavitt: Where the quantitative buffer cannot be achieved then the qualitative standards in Section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use code (LUC) will be applied to the buffer along the Lake Canal. In this case, if the proposed development footprint does not exceed the existing footprint, the applicant will be able to apply the buffer zone standards. We have coordinated this with the City's Environmental Staff and are in compliance with their recommendations and requirements. 7. Can we use the existing water taps that exist on the north and south parcels and can we get credit for them when we apply for new taps? Roger Buffington: Credit will be given for existing services where accounts were established and can be applied on the property where the service currently exists. No comment. 8. There is a high power transmission line that just crosses the southern parcel. Are there any setbacks from the towers or any other issues we need to address for this utility? This line is owned by Platte River Power Authority. Please contact Mike Dahl at 226-4000 We met with Tom McCormack 7/8/09 and are anticipating a letter of understanding and agreement for our proposed improvements. 9. We would like a simple summary statement to confirm our understandings of the floodplain issues affecting the site under the revised FEMA designations. 1. The description of the sites relative to the floodplain in the PDR appears to be correct. The parcel to the east on the north side of Vine Drive and the parcel south of Vine Drive are primarily in the FEMA- designated 100-year Poudre River floodplain, including the existing R clof F6rt' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS within natural habitats or features including without limitation lakes, ponds, stream corridors and wetlands, except as provided in subsection c below;" Subsection c states: "The decision maker may allow disturbance or construction activity within the buffer zone for the following limited purposes: 1. mitigation of development activities; 2. restoration of previously disturbed or degraded areas or planned enhancement projects to benefit the natural area or feature; 3. emergency public safety activities; 4. utility installations when such activities and installations cannot reasonably be located outside the buffer zone or other nearby areas of development; 5. construction of a trail or pedestrian walkway that will provide public access for educational or recreational purposes provided that the trail or walkway is compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature; and 6. construction or installation of recreation features or public park elements, provided that such features or elements are compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature." Our current plans have been coordinated with the City's Environmental Staff and will comply with these and their requirements. 5. Is infiltration going to be an allowable option for the Stormwater requirements for the site? What standards and conditions would apply? Glen Schlueter: Yes, infiltration is an allowable option for drainage release from the site. The requirements for an infiltration pond include sizing the detention/retention pond for two times the volume of the 100 year runoff and there has to be a back up method to empty the pond so that runoff water is released in less than 72 hours. In this case the obvious method would be to use a pump. Also the obvious place to pump to would be the Coy Ditch, so the ditch owners would have to approve discharging into their ditch. Pumping would occur after a storm so the ditch should have the capacity for it and the ditch owners' liability is minimal. The Cache La Poudre River may be an optional discharge point for a pump also. A back up to the pump is not required since the primary release is infiltration. If infiltration fails in the future and the primary release is by pumping, then a back up pumping system would be required at that time. In either case a maintenance schedule for the pumping system would be required. 4 of FcortCollins PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS regarding the TIF and work out a share back option. (This is not impossible but adds time to the overall project expansion.) Not applicable to our current design. b. Which option would be more desirable from an environmental perspective as it pertains to the development on the south parcel and any perceived impacts on the Gustav Swanson Natural Area? Dana Leavitt: Since the south parcel zoning precludes locating a structure of more than one story next to a natural feature buffer, placing the parking in proximity to the buffer is the preferred option. Our current plans anticipate buildings along the street portion of the lot and parking along the natural area as a buffer. 2. What are the requirements for pedestrian crossings between parcels for both options? Ward Stanford: Traffic Operations can not state whether it would approve a crosswalk at this development's location without further study and the decision as to which plan will be submitted We are not requesting a pedestrian crossing for this submittal. 3. What are the setback requirements from the Gustav Swanson Natural Area? Dana Leavitt: Setbacks from Gustav Swanson natural Area actually fall under natural feature buffers. The quantitative buffer from the Coy ditch and associated ponds is 50 feet. As with the case of the Lake Canal buffer, a smaller buffer will be acceptable using the quantitative standards in Section 3.4.1(E)(1). The Natural Areas staff is willing to work with the applicant to develop a mitigation plan for the natural area that reflects the requirements in said section of the LUC. We are not requesting approval for any structures or parking on this parcel at this time. Our plans do include approval for the detention pond which buffers the Gustav Swanson natural area and we have coordinated this element impact with the City's Environmental Staff. 4. What development improvements are allowed in the buffer space identified above? Dana Leavitt: In regards to allowable uses within a buffer zone, per Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the LUC, "No disturbance shall occur within any buffer zone and no person shall engage in any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation 3 FCity Of PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW 6rt Collins STAFF COMMENTS ITEM: Proposed office, laboratory and light industrial uses on the properties at 213, 232, 300, 400, 412 and 500 East Vine Drive. MEETING DATE: August 20, 2008 APPLICANT: Michael Bello Urban Development Partners, LLC 1220 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 mbellol0 d( comcast.net LAND USE DATA: The properties are located on the north and south sides of East Vine Drive between Jerome Street to the west and Redwood Street to the east. The historic Inverness Stock Farm home is located on a portion of the property and will be renovated as office space. APPLICANT QUESTIONS: The applicant wished to have the following questions addressed during the Preliminary Design Review. A brief response follows each question and further comments can be found in the departmental comment section. 1. Option 1 vs. Option 2 configuration: a. Can the URA be extended to the south parcel? Christina Vincent: The process for extending the URA North College project area boundary would take an action by the URA Board (Council). Preliminarily, this is being evaluated to the East of this property however, not currently including any property to the South of Vine Drive. The proposal would need to be presented to the North College CAG for review and recommendation and then a revision of the Urban Renewal Plan boundary and existing conditions study complete for the [proposed expanded area. A public meeting will be held to provide adequate timing for public comment. The findings are then presented to Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation and ultimately to the URA Board for approval. This process takes a couple months from start to finish if all goes as planned. Additionally, there may be some additional concerns if the parcels are already in the DDA boundaries, the DDA has first right of refusal to the tax increment. This means (best case scenario) the URA and DDA enter into an Inter -governmental agreement E City of F6rt Collins August 26, 2008 Michael Bello Urban Development Partners, LLC 1220 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 mbello10 cbcomcast.net Michael, Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 -fax fcgov.com/currentp/anning For your information, attached is a copy of staff's comments for Inverness Innovation Park Preliminary Design Review, which was presented before the development review team on August 20, 2008. The comments are informally offered by staff to assist you in preparing the detailed components of a project application. Modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project. The City's Current Planning Department coordinates the development review process. I am the Project Planner for your project. I will be commenting as well as assisting in the coordination process. If you have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in the review process, please feel free to call me at 970-221-6750. Sincerely, Shelby Sommer City Planner CC: Michael Jensen — mike(Wortcollinsre.com Olexa Tkachenko- ot(Woreviewap.com Bob Gowing - bobq(cDQEDassoc.com Don Bundy - db(o)the-architects-studio.com