Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY CHURCH - PDP - 31-07 - AGENDA - CORRESPONDENCEDrainage 1. Pond Outlet • The City would prefer that the pond outlet be combined with the 15" ADS outlet from the pond for the property to the west. This line runs just south of the proposed pond. If this presents problems this could be discussed further. • The pond will outlet to an existing swale with limited downstream capacity. Rex Bums with Larimer County should be consulted regarding the outlet. Kevin stated that preliminary discussions have been had with Rex and that the preliminary suggestion has been that the site be retained or detained with a very small release rate (0.1 cfs). Further discussions with Rex and the City will be necessary as the design proceeds. • Basil noted that water quality will also be necessary and that a combination of water quality and detention volume will be acceptable. . • It was also stated that the emergency spillway will need to be directed towards Lemay. 2. Bioswale concept • Kevin explained that due to the volume required for the site and the elevations of the pond outlet that a shallow pond will be necessary. The concept of a bioswale being used for the bottom of the pond was discussed, using 0.1 % for the channel in the pond and 0.4% cross slopes. Basil stated that this could be acceptable, but suggested that the upper reaches of the pond have a concrete channel to limit the area of sediment buildup. The downstream reaches of the pond would not have a concrete channel. This item will also need further discussion with the City as the design progresses. 3. Larimer County requirements • Larimer County will need'to review and sign off on the drawings. Rex Bums should be contacted to further discuss the drainage/detention release of the site. Planning/Submittal Requirements 1. Building location • The location of the building appears to be fine. Churches are typically granted modifications to the build -to lines. 2. Building entrance • The main entrance of the building is not favorable. The main entrance should be located along the street frontage of Buckingham or Lemay (most likely Buckingham), with the parking lot located on the side of the building not in front of the building. • The architectural finishes for the building, particularly along the street frontages, will need to be approved. 3. Shared parking • The City would like the church to discuss shared parking with the property to the west to limit the amount of parking on the site. The City will help facilitate this discussion. • The second point of fire access could also be connected through the site to the west and should be discussed. 4. Type of process • The standard checklist should be followed for the PDP. • The CRT is complete and the City is ready to see a submittal. C:\Documents and Settings\tsheparftocal Settings\Temp\MVCC 12.07.06.doc extension/connection of Buckingham to Lemay. It is unclear when/if the Northstar design will be completed. 3. Lemay Improvements • The ultimate sidewalk section would need to be constructed with this project assuming that it is needed from a pedestrian access standpoint. The location of the sidewalk should be placed assuming a local street section for Lemay (once Lemay is relocated this roadway would be a local street). If the TIS shows that this sidewalk is not necessary than eliminating this from the scope of the project may be possible. The TIS should be coordinated with Eric Bracke. • Curb and gutter along Lemay is not necessary at this time. • The TIS should address whether or not a designated left turn lane is necessary due to the church being constructed. 4. Access to Buckingham • The current design of the dual access from Buckingham is not favorable and should be discussed in further detail with Eric Bracke. It is preferable that a single access with a maximum width of 36' be utilized with a left turn lane incorporated. Other options may be available and should be discussed with Eric. This is also an item that should be addressed in the TIS. • The group also discussed that the current connection with Buckingham would most likely not be acceptable as two points of fire access. A second connection at Lemay or possibly through the site to the west would be necessary ultimately as well as for Phase I of the parking lot. Confirm with PFA. 5. Access to Lemay • The right in/right out access to Lemay is acceptable but should be confirmed with the TIS. Utilities 1. Sanitary • The sanitary on the southwest portion of the site is very shallow. An ejector pump would be acceptable with the City. • Other sanitary lines around the site could also be available for service. Roger provided Kevin with a drawing outlining other suitable locations for sanitary service. 2. Water • The 12" waterline in Buckingham and the 24" in Lemay are available for service. • Coordinate the location of hydrants with PFA. • The City will not require a water model from the engineer. If PFA does require a water model, the City can and will run the model. 3. Dry Utilities • The dry utility contacts for this project are o Electric — City of Fort Collins Electric Utility o Gas — Xcel o Telecom — Qwest o Cable — Qwest or Comcast • Transformers will need to be located on pad sites and will need to be landscaped around. Further details can be discussed as the design progresses. C:\Documents and Settings\tsheparftocal Settings\Temp\MVCC 12.07.06.doc N INORTHERN ENGINEERING ADDRESS: PHONE: 970.221.4158 200 S. College Ave. Suite 100 WEBSITE: Fort Collins, CO 80524 FAX: 970.221.4159 www.northernengineering.com Mountain View Community Church Meeting Minutes — December_7, 2006 These minutes are meant to summarize the principal items of discussion in the December 7, 2006 meeting with the City of Fort Collins staff. The meeting was held to clarify site engineering and planning items. Attendees: Marc Virata — City of Fort Collins Roger Buffington — City of Fort Collins Ted Shepard — City of Fort Collins Basil Harridan — City of Fort Collins Janet — City of Fort Collins Electric Utility Kevin Brazelton — Northern Engineering Principal Discussion Items Fire Requirements 1. A Poudre Fire Authority representative was not available for the meeting. Contact either Ron Gonzalez or Came Dann at 221-6570. Roadways 1. Additional ROW • Marc stated that additional ROW for both Buckingham and Lemay may be required of this project. • For Buckingham, a 76' ROW (collector section) will be necessary. Kevin stated that this ROW may have already been dedicated. Confirmation with the current plat (Replat of North Lemay Subdivison 2nd) will be necessary. Coordinate this item for both Lemay and Buckingham with Marc. • Additional ROW for Lemay would most likely only be necessary if a left turn lane is needed at the intersection with Buckingham. The TIS will determine the need for the turning lane. 2. Buckingham Improvements • At a minimum, curb, gutter and sidewalk will be necessary along Buckingham from the property west of the site to Lemay, transitioning to the existing street section. • Currently, a design by Northstar of the Lemay realignment, which would include the extension of Buckingham, is being performed. It is unclear at this time if this design, being a part of a development project, will be completed or may possibly be abandoned. If the design is not completed, than the church project would be responsible for this design to ensure that additional ROW adjacent to the property would not be required due to the C:\Documents and Settings\tshepard\Local Settings\Temp\MVCC 12.07.06.doc 9 Mountain View Community Church Meeting 12/7/2006 Agenda Fire Requirements • Two points of access • Hydrant placement • Fire Supression Roadways • Additional ROW (Comment 14) • Buckingham Improvements (Comments 16,19) • Lemay Improvements (Comment 15) • Access to Buckingham (Comment 17) • Access to Lemay • TIS Utilities • Sanitary (Comment 7) • Water (Fire and Domestic models) (Comment 7) • Dry Utilities (Electric, G s, Telecom, Cable)--- c o pn c frs T - DEo.r(jfs 6�"c Gh6Er�ivnc r Drainage L to pEpNtoo • Pond Outlet • Bioswale concept • Larimer County requirements (retention/detention) (Comment 6) Planning/Submittal Requirements • Building Location (Comment 2) 0• I'-- t-46- chN aE F�rL4�t • Type of Process (PDP and Building Permit) TYrE oNE • Requirements _ Chcckjj s r • Next steps — S'u6m i r f,ec_.rv4M c7r*4 nTG.