Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIBERTY COMMON SCHOOL ADDITION - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 11-02 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWOWN Arch istruction'" NATURAL RESOURCES: 1. RE: Storm Drainage: Point 4, this letter. 2. No significant new landscaping is anticipated. In those small areas labeled "New Sod" on the Existing Landscape Plan, native grasses will be considered as appropriate for each specific location. CURRENT PLANNING: 1. We believe the character of our design is appropriate for the context of the school and the location of the area in which it is situated. The addition shall have a warm light red/brown color on the Gymnasium and a slightly darker but still light, red/brown color on the Foyer and exposed corridor portions of the project. The extent and mass of the addition will be mitigated considerably by the existing landscaping on the Sharp Point Drive side and somewhat by the wood fence indicated on the site plan. 2. Presumably this comment is aimed at the fact that the Foyer as well as the Gymnasium is to be coated pre -cast concrete rather than brick to match the existing school. Our decision to go with pre -cast concrete in this context was made on both aesthetic and practical grounds. The aesthetic grounds are covered in point 1 above. The practical reasons have to do with economy, flow and schedule of construction. A brick and block addition would be considerably more time-consuming to build, would pose more logistical and safety problems for the school children, provide an attractive nuisance in the scaffolding required to build the walls and would have higher construction costs. The coated pre -cast solves all these problems and, we believe, is a very good aesthetic solution in the context. Once again we thank you, Bob, for your kind assistance with the development of this application. Please let us know if there is any additional information you require. Sincerely, John B. Jame Project Architect The Neenan Company JAM / , 1 Archistruction'" POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY: 1. The owner does not desire to vacate the access drive west of March Court at this time. In the near future, the owner plans to develop the empty lots to the south as athletic/playing fields and as part of that work will re -arrange the site pick- up/drop-off layout and vacate the aforementioned access drive at that time. This future work is not part of the application, so the existing drive will continue to be a fire lane and the existing fire hydrant will remain with this application. 2. The new addition will be sprinklered, as is the existing building. ENGINEERING: 1. We believe that no street oversizing fee should apply to the addition. There is no impact to justify it. 2. The connection from March Court to Midpoint Drive remains unchanged in this application. 3. Damaged curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be replaced. STORM DRAINAGE: 1. No Comment 2. A drainage and Erosion Control Plan for this project is attached. 3. The Drainage and Erosion Control Plan addresses additional detention for both water, quantity and quality. 4. We believe that no easement will be required (previous easements should suffice). Should it be legally determined that an additional easement is necessary, we will process such an easement as required, but request that this have no impact on the proposed start of construction. (April 8, 2002). 5. Our engineering investigation has determined that no additional pipe under Sharp Point Drive will be necessary. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: 1. Upon discussion with Eric Bracke, it was determined that all that was necessary was a letter from a transportation engineer stating there was minimal or no impact on existing traffic loads (see memorandum attached by Matthew J. Delich, P.E.) 2. At such time when on street parking on Sharp Point Drive is eliminated (presumably when Midpoint Drive is extended to Drake Road), Liberty Common School shall have presented an additional Site Plan which will deal with a new drop-off/pick-up layout thru the site to the Midpoint Drive access, additional playing field development to the south, additional parking (if required) and elimination of on street parking on Sharp Point Drive. 3. RE: Point 2 above. 4. RE: Point 2 above. Archistruction® February 27, 2002 Bob Barkeen City Planner Current Planning City of Fort Collins Fort Collins P.O. Box 2127 t80522) 2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 493-8747 (9701 493-5869 FAX RE: LIBERTY COMMON SCHOOL SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW Dear Mr. Barkeen, Denver Eighteenth Street Atrium 1621 18th Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 296-0383 (303) 296-0382 FAX Colorado Springs P.O. Box 1478 Colorado Springs, CO 80901-1478 (719)633-4713 (719)633-9508 FAX The following is our response to the Conceptual Review Team staff comments generated from the Conceptual Review on February 11, 2002 of the Liberty Common School Gymnasium and Foyer Addition that we are proposing to build at 1725 Sharp Point Drive. This letter also serves as the cover letter for our application of this date for your Site Plan Advisory Review. First, though, we want to express our appreciation for the cooperative response we have received from Cameron Gloss and yourself in the process of this project. As we have indicated previously, it is our intent and desire to act as responsible citizens of Fort Collins and to do all in our power to meet the city's standards for good planning practice. The responses below are submitted in the same format and order of the staff s comments: ZONING: 1. We are clear on the process of the Site Plan Advisory Review and understand the need for the presentation before the Planning and Zoning Board. Our understanding is that this presentation will be held on the evening of April 4, 2002. LIGHT AND POWER: 1. The project will require an increase in electrical load and the owner understands the necessity for payment for the increase. If a transformer switch -out is required, the owner will pay the applicable cost. WATER/WASTEWATER: 1. We believe that no increase in service size of either the water line or the sanitary sewer line will be necessary. Should an increase in service size of either be required, the owner will pay the applicable cost.