HomeMy WebLinkAboutSIDEHILL (JOHNSON PROPERTY) - ODP - 32-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSJohnson Property ODP
December 11, 2001
Water Wastewater
11. Provide for a future sanitary sewer connection to the North (Parcel "D").
Sear -Brown will conduct a study of the area and size the sewer at PDP level.
12. Provide adequate sanitary sewer capacity for this development and for Parcel "D".
Sear -Brown will conduct a study of the area and size the sewer at PDP level.
Zoning
2. No comments at this time.
Comment acknowledged.
Traffic Operation
1. 1 may require NB (Northbound) RTL (Right Turn Lanes) at access A-E.
***Matt D. ***
SMW:jsi
S:\WPVohnson Properties\ODP Comments.doc
9
Johnson Property ODP
December 11, 2001
Transportation Planning
22. TIS Comments:
There are two additional school destination/origin points that need to be addressed in the bike
and pedestrian portions of the TIS — they include Riffenburg Elementary and Liberty Common
Schools, both within the 1.5 mile radius. Also include an in depth analysis of the route to school
that covers security, surface, etc ... as outlined in the TIS standards.
2. In addition, several recreational trails in the area need to be included as destinations/origins
within the study. These trails include the Spring Creek Trail, Poudre River Trail, the Foothills
Channel Trail, and the partially constructed trail along the Union Pacific Railroad line.
3. Additional information regarding the pedestrian and bicycle LOS is needed. A written description
stating how the LOS B is achieved for the five classifications listed in the worksheet is necessary.
See Transportation Impact Study Addendum (memo).
23. Large Medians:
Provide a note stating that the Johnson Farm development will be responsible for the landscaping
and maintenance of the proposed 100' median.
The landscape median will be illustrated at the PDP level and we will commit to the
maintenance at that time.
2. Typically street cross sections are not shown at the ODP stage. But with the large proposed
median additional information is necessary, for example, which collectors are proposed with this
cross section? And what portions of the street will consist of this cross section? And how will the
cross section operate at intersections?
We will commit to the street sections at the PDP level. We are removing all sections as
requested.
24. Access point C should be aligned with the proposed main entrance with the Spring Creek Farm
development to the west.
It is our intent to align with Spring Creek's main entry.
25. Locate a neighborhood trail parallel to the railroad tracks from Timberline Road to the north and
connect it to the future trail being constructed by the Rigden Farm development to the south.
The Parks Department (Jeff Lakey) said there is no need for a linear trail system along Rail
Rd. We are providing on -street connections to all off -site amenities.
26. Recommendation: Establish a well connected network of streets that disperse traffic and eases
walking. Utilize a mix of narrow streets, short blocks, well defined crosswalks, median refuges for
pedestrians, on -street parking and bike lanes, and traffic calming measures, to name a few.
Comment acknowledged.
Johnson Property ODP
December 11, 2001
Stormwater Utility
13. Detention Pond Design:
The detention ponds designed were sized using UD Pond. This is fine for an approximate sizing of
these facilities, however, the site will need to be modeled using UDSWMM per City criteria at PDP
level. This may result in an increase in pond volume and aerial coverage.
Sear -Brown will complete a UDSWMM design for PDP and FCP plans. We have
approximated the increased volume by adding and applying a factor of 1.25.
14. Outfall Design:
Detention Pond B is proposed to drain into the Rigden Farm pond at the corner of Drake and Ziegler
Rd. This pond is privately owned and operated. Approval from the developer of the Rigden Farm
property would be required for this proposed design. Additionally, the design of the siphon under
Ziegler Rd. would have to accommodate the additional flows coming from this development.
The Drake Road plans are currently being reviewed as part of the Rigden Farm Filing 6 submittal.
Please make sure that proposed Detention Ponds A and B have the appropriate outlet points and
facilities to service these ponds. It would be a good idea to coordinate these prior to road
construction to avoid disturbing the newly built arterial street in the future.
Sear -Brown's drainage plan shows a general arrow of the outfall from the pond to the
Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. This is the first choice of the outfall and is consistent
with the master plan.
15. Outfall Easements:
The Rigden Farm development is currently negotiating for an easement for the outfall from the
Rigden Farm pond. It is important to make sure that this easement will accommodate the combined
additional 85 cfs that would be issued from this development if the currently proposed outfall route is
chosen. Otherwise, please adhere to the outfall point designated in the Foothill Basin Master Plan
which assumes that this site will drain in to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch.
This will not apply, as we are not planning to discharge to the Rigden Farms Pond.
16. Basin Delineation:
Please show how the original Master Plan approved basins are being affected by this proposal. Will
there be any basin transfer from Spring Creek into the Foothills Basin as a result of this proposal?
The Overall Drainage Plan submitted defines two basins contributing to Ponds A and B. Please
address how these basins relate to the approved Master Plan for this area. Please discuss whether
any of the Master Plan approved basins are being affected by this design. Please show the master
plan basin delineation on the proposed overall drainage plan.
The Site is planned to work within the Master Plan. There should be not Drainage Basin
Transfers of storm flows.
We will show the Master Plan Drainage Basin Lines.
17. Please address all comments provided in the redlined drainage report.
Drainage Report Comments have been addressed.
Johnson Property ODP
December 11, 2001
33. Land for the park must contain suitable grades (high majority less than 5%) for the development of
the park.
With the relocation of the Neighborhood Park, the new site is flat and very appropriate for
ballfields and such. Jeff Lakey and Craig Foreman have approved this location.
PFA
18. Address Numerals:
Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted on contrasting
background with a minimum of 6-inch numerals for residential and 10-inch for commercial buildings.
97 UFC 901.4.4.
PDP issue, comment acknowledged.
19. Water Supply:
Residential Requirements:
No residential building can be greater than 400 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire hydrants are required
with a maximum spacing of 800 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of
delivering 1000 gallons of water per minute with a residual pressure of 20 psi.
Commercial Requirements:
No commercial building can be greater than 300 feet from afire hydrant. Fire hydrants are required
with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of
delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute with a residual pressure of 20 psi. 97 UFC 901.2.2.2.
PDP issue, comment acknowledged.
20. Street Names:
Street names shall be verified and reviewed by LETA and the City Planning Department prior to being
put into service.
PDP issue, comment acknowledged.
Street Oversizing
40. Traffic Impact Study shows acceptable levels of service at Timberline and Prospect at 2007. Is
Adequate Public Facilities (APF) an issue with this development? If so, at what point?
See Transportation Impact Study Addendum (memo).
41. Staff has worked extensively to plan transportation network in this area. CDP access points seem to
follow these guidelines, with the exception of the alignment of Sharp Point Drive extension through
the site. Please address roadway classifications for Sharp Point Drive, Access H, and Access C.
See Page 25 of Matt D. report for roadway classifications.
42. Pedestrian connection from site to Poudre River trail system should be more of a "trail' improvements
than just streets and sidewalks.
All pedestrian connections will follow street alignments up to our property line.
Johnson Property ODP
December 11, 2001
9. Will need to submit a hydrologic study at the time of PDP submittal due to high ground water on the
site.
Comment acknowledged.
Light and Power
1. No comments.
O.K.
Natural Resources
27. NRD supports the comments made by Park Planning —
• The proposed 10-acre public park needs to be moved to be located outside of the 25' natural
habitat and feature buffer.
• If the Parks Department and Natural Resources Department agree to allow the park to occur
within the buffer a variance will be needed.
We have relocated the 8 — 10 acre neighborhood park to the southeast area to be located
within the 1,000' non -habitable setback. It has flat terrain and is next to the community
detention area. Jeff Lakey and Craig Foreman have approved this new location.
Park Planning
30. The Park Planning and Development Division would be interested in acquiring 8 acres of
neighborhood park land, including rights to raw water. The division would be interested in
participating jointly with the developer in a water storage and conveyance system for irrigation of the
park property.
We have met with Jeff Lakey and Craig Foreman about the proposed location. Further
discussions need to occur concerning the water storage issue. This would be a PDP
issue.
31. The park planning staff will require a reconfiguration of the park land and neighboring residential land
to reduce street frontage to about 50% of the park boundary prior to approving the development plan.
With the new location of the Neighborhood Park, there will only be street frontage on one
side of the park.
32. The City's ecological inventory and the developer's ecological characterization study apparently
identified a "woodlot" on the development site. This is evidently a row of cottonwood trees that
voluntarily established along a line of wetness at the base of the Poudre Wall in the recent past
(water source unknown). The "woodlot" seems to meet the criteria for a "natural habitat or feature"
according to the land use code and therefore will require a 25 foot buffer measured away from the
outer drip line of the trees. Within the buffer area according to code interpretation development
activities are restricted. While the trees themselves would make attractive features for the design and
development of a neighborhood park, the Park Planning and Development Division is not interested
in this case in the purchase of natural resource buffer land for park development purposes. This
"buffer' area can be adjacent to, but not part of, the park land acquisition.
With the relocation of the Neighborhood Park, the wood lot will be private open space and
maintained by the community HOA.
Johnson Property ODP
December 11, 2001
38. Take the word "future" off the label for the sharp Point Drive arrow. Contact Matt Baker, the Street
Oversizing Coordinator with the Engineering Department, to determine what involvement your
development will be required to have in the extension of Sharp Point Drive and the crossing of the
railroad track.
See Transportation Impact Study Addendum (memo).
39. Coordinate with Eric Bracke (Traffic Operations @ 224-6062) and Matt Baker (Engineering @ 221-
6605) regarding upcoming Timberline improvements, and what participation your development will be
required to have. This is primarily a PDP issue, but I recommend that you start these discussions
early.
Sear -Brown will coordinate with Eric Bracke and Matt Baker regarding the future
Timberline Improvements.
Engineering
3. Remove the street sections from the ODP set.
Alt street sections removed.
4. Per the traffic study, the roads through the site connecting Drake, Timberline and Sharp Point shall be
collectors — not connectors as shown. Correct labeling.
See Transportation Impact Study Addendum (memo).
5. What does the solid double lines around the public park represent?
The double lines around the public park represents the two (2) bubble boundaries. We will
modify the line weight to read better.
6. Road connection to Sharp Point Drive should be labeled as all the others are and not as future.
Comment acknowledged.
7. Change note 2 to read as follows —
2. "...All private/common open space areas and arterial/collector/connector streetscapes will be
maintained by a homeowner's association unless otherwise accepted by the City of Fort Collins
for maintenance. Homeowner's association responsible for snow removal on the arterial
sidewalks and all bicycle/ped trails. City will not take on maintenance of arterial streetscape or
sidewalk per city code."
To note per the City code it is the adjacent property owners responsibility for maintenance and repair
of curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Comment acknowledged.
8. The traffic study shows construction of improvements at Prospect/Timberline intersection in the short
term and does not show how the intersection will function without those improvements. Is this
development then planning on building those improvements?
See Transportation Impact Study Addendum (memo).
Johnson Property ODP
December 11, 2001
Places .... then the development plan shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the
historic resource."
• 3.4.7(B) where it states, `The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance
the historical and architectural value of any such historic property, whether on or adjacent to the
project site. New buildings must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic
buildings, whether on the project site or adjacent thereto."
• 3.4.7(D)(1) where it states, "Original materials and details, as well as distinctive form and scale,
that contribute to the historic significance of the structure or neighborhood shall be preserved to
the maximum extent feasible. Rehabilitation work shall not destroy the distinguishing quality or
character of the property or its environment."
• 3.4.7(E)(2) where it states, "New buildings shall be designed to be in character with existing
historic structures."
• 3.4.7(E)(4) where it states, "Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and
neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to
the maximum extent feasible.
We have agreed to the Jessup Farm compound and buffer area. We have not yet agreed
on the Johnson Farm compound and buffer area. We will finalize this during the PDP for
that area.
34. It is likely that there will need to be at least two elements to the notion of a buffer area around the
historic resources. The first element will need to be a "hands -off' buffer area where not development
activity occurs. The second element to the buffer will need to be a developable area where the
intensity of development is sensitive to the preservation of the integrity of the historic resource. This
second element to the buffer would be to ensure that highly intensive land uses (such as 3 story
apartment buildings) are not located directly adjacent to the "hands -off' portion of the buffer, or in
other words, it would be to ensure a gradual transition from the non -developed portion of the buffer to
the part of the site where there would be no restrictions on the intensity of development. As
mentioned previously, the determination of the appropriate locations of the buffers will be based on
the "in -the -field" design exercise.
We have agreed to the Jessup Farm compound and buffer area. We have not yet agreed
on the Johnson Farm compound and buffer area. We will finalize this during the PDP for
that area.
35. The line weight of the on -site collector and connector streets is the same as the line weight of the
boundaries of each bubble. Please make them different line weights to avoid confusion.
We will change the line weight of the bubbles to avoid the confusion.
36. Please specify a minimum number of units for the UE zone district.
The approved Rezoning Plan within the Urban Estate area allows 171 units.
37. The main compatibility question between the UE cluster location and the wastewater plant has not
been satisfied entirely. The "water treatment buffer" should be extended to the north. See Curreni
Planning redlines.
We have now provided a 1,000' no build zone under the approved Structure Plan/Rezone
document. Prohibiting any habitable structures within 1,000' of the Wastewater Treatment
Plant Area (line provided by City).
Johnson Property ODP
December 11, 2001
Current Planning
21. Bubble Diagrams — If you choose to take our advise and zone the northern portion LMN, it starts to
make sense to break down the LMN into bubbles on the ODP. Typically, ODP's are bubble
diagrammatic in nature. Usually, each zone district is divided into several bubble areas. Each bubble
area is labeled with text that specifies proposed land uses and densities. You have done this, but
each of your proposed bubbles happens to be the exact dimensions of the proposed underlying zone
district. While this is technically permissible, we strongly recommend that you break down the LMN
and UE zone districts into smaller bubbles. The UE bubble should show the park as a bubble, the
farmstead/ridge/detention pond as a bubble, and the development cluster as a bubble. The LMN
area should be divided up into several identifiable bubbles where appropriate. The ridgeline and the
edge of the historic buffer area may be logical boundaries between bubbles.
It is our understanding that an ODP requires general zoning designations and the PDP
level is where the detail is illustrated and reviewed. It is our intent to illustrate the overall
zoning designations.
28. Section 3.4.7(A) of the LUC states that the Historic and Cultural Resources regulations in the LUC
are intended to ensure that historic sites "are preserved and incorporated into the proposed
development," and that "any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic
property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource." The big
question is how to fairly determine what sizes and characteristics would be needed around the
historic resources to ensure that the integrity of the historic resources are not adversely affected by
the proposed development. Staff will be deferring the decision on where the appropriate historical
buffers should be until after such time as an in -the -field design exercise has been conducted with the
applicant, City Staff and Staff's historic consultant. I am in the process of trying to set this meeting up
during the first 2 weeks in September, but have not yet finalized a time. I will be continuing to contact
you regarding your availability for this meeting. A copy of the consultant's report will be made
available to you prior to the in -the -field design exercise.
We have agreed to the Jessup Farm compound and buffer area. We have not yet agreed
on the Johnson Farm compound and buffer area. We will finalize this during the PDP for
that area.
29. Our Land Use Code is somewhat general with regard to exactly how to adequately preserve the
integrity of an historic resource, however, it is very clear that historic integrity and historic character
are required to be preserved. Our motivation to involve a consultant in the review of the historic
buffer issues is to offer the clearest possible direction to your development team. We felt it important
o have the consultant assist staff in the task of determining what is a reasonable interpretation of the
code language for this specific site. To that end, we asked the consultant to research examples of
literature and regulations around the country that speak to a method to establish buffer areas. The
"in -the -field" design exercise is intended to help staff determine precisely what the City's position on
how the following code citations should be interpreted:
3.4.7(A) where it states, `This Section is intended to ensure that (1) historic sites, structures or
objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that
may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done is a way that does not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource; and (2) new construction is designed to
respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding
neighborhood."
3.4.7(B) where it states, "If the project contains a site, structure or object that is ... determined to
be eligible for local landmark designation or for listing in the National Register of Historic
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 11, 2001
TO: Troy Jones — City of Fort Collins
FROM: Susan Wade — Downing, Thorpe & James, Inc.
Melinda Bartlett — James Company
RE: Johnson Property ODP Response Memo
ISSUES:
Advance Planning
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENGINEERING
DOWNING
THO"E
JAMES
43. Historic Preservation is opposed to the collector street proposed to connect Sharp Point Drive and
Drake Road. This street will have a severely detrimental impact on the Johnson Farm's integrity,
including both its historic context and its historic viewshed.
The road location has been modified due to the 1,000' setback requirement. Residential
Development may occur between the road and Jessup Farm site. Final buffer area has not
yet been agreed upon. We will finalize this during PDP phase.
44. Historic Preservation Staff have a disagreement with the James Co. and the James Co.'s consultant
as to which buildings, structures and features are significant. Buildings and structures are evaluated
for their historic significance, not for their current "functionality." Historic buildings and structures
without an obvious new use should be stabilized and "mothballed" until an appropriate new use is
identified. The James Co.'s proposal to demolish several of the Jessup Farm structures is not in
compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
We will not be demolishing any of the farm structures. The Jessup Farm is zoned
industrial and will likely be sold or donated to a user such as single-family residence, Herb
Farm, art gallery, veterinary clinic, or office use. The Johnson Farm will also be preserved
for a single use; either a single-family residence or above mentioned uses, or possibly a
handicapped riding facility.
45. There is the need to resolve the issue of an appropriate buffer around the two farmsteads, sufficient
to maintain the historic contexts of the farmsteads. The farms' contexts include not only the farm
buildings, structures, objects and features, but also significant in any determination of a buffer are the
historic viewsheds, land uses (including grazing, vegetation and cropland), and the historic
relationship of the two farms to each other. The issue of appropriate buffers will be the focus of an
on -site meeting, to occur in the near future.
We have agreed to the Jessup Farm compound and buffer area. We have not yet agreed
on the Johnson Farm compound and buffer area. We will finalize this during the PDP for
that area.
46. If the entire Jessup Farm property is zoned LMN, then the rezoning should not affect the historic
farmstead. If, however, a portion is to retain the I zoning, then the appropriate farm boundaries and
buffers will need to be determined before supporting the zone's boundary change.
This issue was resolved during Structure Plan Amendment and Rezone Approvals. The
Jessup Farm including compound and buffer area is zoned Industrial.
1881 Ninth Street, Suite 103
Boulder, Colorado 80302
303-443-7533 Fax 303-443-7534
www.dtjboulder.com