HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING - PDP - 29-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - (4)which complies with the standard for which a modification is
requested; or
(2) the granting of a.modification from the strict application of any
standard would result in a substantial benefit to the city by
reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially
address an important community need specifically and
expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive
Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by way of
example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or
would substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described
problem of city-wide concern (such as, by way of example only,
traffic congestion or urban blight), and the strict application of
such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of, exceptional physical conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such
property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as
exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical
conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar
energy system, the strict application of. the standard sought to be
modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of
such property, provided, that such difficulties or hardship are not
caused by the act or omission of the applicant.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2) or (3) above shall be
supported by supplemental findings showing how the plan, as submitted,
meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1) (2) or (3)
I11111
The justification request letter for this modification request does not speak
to how the plan satisfies the above review criteria. The Planning and Zoning
Board can only grant a modification based on those criteria, so your
justification must be specific to those criteria.
f. In the Current Planning comments dated October 18, 1999, comment "h"
stated that the Land Use Code "requires that the east -west spine and the
north -south mid -block pedestrian spines must also be shown on the site
plan." Assuming your modification request is granted and you are given
permission not to provide amid -block pedestrian crossing of Mason Street,
the remaining portion of the east -west spine on your site still must be
adequately addressed. You are showing a 6-foot wide sidewalk going east -
west directly north of the building, but it does not continue to the west.
The Civic Center Master Plan is very clear that both the north -south spine,
3
e
and the east -west spine are "central organizing elements" of the entire Civic
Center Master Plan. It was decided by the Growth Management Lead Team
on January 4, 2000 that the on -site portion of this east -west spine is
critical at this phase of this block's ultimate design, and that it needs to be
much more substantial than it is currently shown. It must continue across
the entire site from east to west. Advance Planning has worked out a design
that would work to satisfy this required spine design, and is attached to this
comment sheet.
g. The Current Planning comments "i" and "j" from the October 181h staff
review comment sheet have not been addressed adequately. Per Section
3.2.4(D)(7) of the LUC, the lighting plan exceeds the maximum allowable on -
site lighting levels of 10 foot-candles. Also, per Section 3.2.4(C) of the LUC,
it does not provide the required minimum lighting levels for "building
surrounds" nor "walkways along roadways." Please see the highlighted areas
on the redlined lighting plan for specific locations of the deficiencies.
h. The Current Planning comment "k" from the October 18'h staff review .
comment sheet has not been addressed adequately. Your response to this
comment was, "the utilities (L&P, TCI, Citel, water meter, US West) located
at the northeast corner of the building are buried utility vaults.... the only
visible portion of these vaults will be the lid...... the gas and irrigation box are
located within a shrub bed which contains plants which will -grow 3 to 4 feet
tall... these utilities will not be visible from the public street." What about
meters, boxes and conduits? We must see a diagram of how. any utility
meters, above ground boxes, and conduits will be screened. This was
requested last round of review, and is a crucial element of the design that
cannot be overlooked. It cannot be determined that the design satisfies
Section 3.5.1(J)(2)&(3) of the LUC until such a diagram is provided. Please
refer to the redlined photograph of an unacceptable treatment utilities
which is stapled to the site plan. The project cannot go to hearing without
resolving this issue.
Zoning made the first round comment to show building envelope dimensions
and distances to the lot line, and also to label the lot line. The applicant's
response was that Sear Brown Engineering indicated that a building envelope
is not planned, but would show one if needed for logistical reasons. Zoning's
response now is that the they do not need to show the building envelope,
dimensions and distance to lot lines, but the lot lines still need to be
labeled.
4
verifying continuing efforts toward resolving the issues is required within
the same timeline.
b. The Current Planning comments "b" and "e" from the October 18'h staff
review comment sheet have not been addressed adequately. The alternative
compliance request for the tree spacing must also explain how the proposed
plan "ensures significant canopy shading to reduce glare and heat build up."
Other projects in the past have provided more trees in other location
throughout the site than would otherwise be required to satisfy city
criteria, and used that as a justification of how the plan satisfies the
purpose equal to or better than a plan which satisfies the criteria. Please
calculate how many trees would be required if you satisfied the criteria, and
calculate how many you are providing, then use that information in your
justification.
c. The Current Planning comment "c" from the October 18'h staff review
_comment sheet has not been addressed adequately. While the area west of
the building has the Howes Outfall underground to prevent full tree stocking
within 50 feet of the west fagade, but the area north of the building does
not have a physical barrier that prevents full tree stocking from occurring.
The area north of the building must comply with the full tree stocking
requirement as regulated by Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) of the LUC.
d. The Current Planning comment "g" from the October 18'h staff review
comment sheet has not been addressed adequately. Your response to this
comment states, "There is no minimum separation for the ornamental lights."
Please clarify the source of this information.
e. The Current Planning comment "h" from the October 18'h staff review
comment sheet has not been addressed adequately. The modification
request to deviate from the "civic spine" requirement to provide a mid -block
crossing across Mason must be reworded to specifically address the
applicable review criteria. Section 2.8.2(H) of the LUC specifies that the
Planning and Zoning Board grant a modification of standards only if:
• It finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental
to the public good,
• It finds that the granting of the modification would not impair the
intent and purposes of the Land Use Code,
• It finds one of the three following situations to be satisfied:
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the. public
interests and purposes of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan
Commx._.ity Planning and Environmental cervices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Roger Sherman
BHA Design
4803 Innovation Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
January 5, 2000
RE: Staff review comments for the Civic Center Office Building
COMMENTS:
1. Water/Wastewater Utility Department: 5 t
a. Please seethe redlined plans and the attached comments from the Water
and Wastewater department. .
2. Stormwater Utility Department:
a. Please seethe redlined plans and the attached comments from Stormwater
department.
3. Engineering Department:
a. .Please see the redlined plans and the attached comments from the
Engineering department. l
4. Zoning, Natural Resources, and Poudre Fire Authority:
a. Please see the attached comment sheets from these departments.
5.. Advance Planning:
a. Please see redlined plan from the Advanced Planning Department. I 1 I
6. Current Planning:
a. Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code requires that an applicant submit I I I
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 April
4, 2000. A 30 day extension to this deadline is available. All requests 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
otft.
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
to be entrance only, so if the alley is one way north -bound, there would be no
way to get into the site from Maple street. The alley entrance off Maple
Street needs to be at least 24' wide to accommodate 2-way traffic. This .
issue will also be discussed at the January loth meeting.
n. The mid -block pedestrian crossing on La Porte Avenue is intended to be a
very significant pedestrian crossing. This north -south pedestrian spine is
identified in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan main spine as one of the
two major open space spines. This main spine is specified to connect the
existing County office/courthouse building with Lee Martinez Park, and
eventually the Poudre River. Refer to page 10, the "Framework Plan," and
page 11, the "Civic Spine" plan in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan
document which shows this north -south spine as the main central organizing
element of the urban design scheme for the Downtown Civic Center Master
Plan. It is my understanding that this crossing.is being designed and built as
part of the Howes Outf all project, but we need to discuss making the
crossing wider. We will be discussing the design of this crossing at the
Monday, January loth meeting.
If you have any questions about anything on this letter, feel free to call me.
5' cerely,
TroyV"
. Jone
Project Planner
M
j. Bill Whirty will be the supervisor of the department that will maintain the
grass areas of this project. Bill has agreed to maintain Fuscue turf if it is
installed as sod. Bill would prefer a dwarf blend of Fescue sod, and
suggested contacting the sod grower in the Wellington area for a local
source of dwarf fescue sod.
k. It was apparently discussed at a meeting with Jack Gionola, Cam McNair, and
Mark McCallum on or around November 23, 1999 that the design team was
going to reconfigure the parking lot to provide a more efficient one-way
system. The only apparent change shown to the parking lot is the inclusion
of one way directional arrows in the drive aisles. This does not constitute a
design reconfiguration. In light of a conversation between Mark McCallum,
Peter Barnes, and Troy Jones regarding the discussions that took place
during the November 23rd meeting, Peter Barnes from zoning has the
following comments regarding the parking lot configuration:
1) The alley entrance off Maple needs to be at least 24' wide to
accommodate 2-way traffic. It will be the only access into the
parking lot for people using Maple Street, and if the Mason access is
limited to. entrance only, that means people will exit the parking lot by
means of the alley to Maple Street. Thus, vehicles will be entering
and exiting at that point.
2) The parking lot needs to be reconfigured to eliminate the "curved"
parking rows. The curve creates a situation where some parking stalls
are actually angled backwards, depending on which way you're going,
and this will make accessing those stalls awkward. I don't think it
would matter if the revised layout is one-way or two-way, just as long
as the stalls are either angled the same direction, or they are all at a
90 degree angle to the drive aisle.
I. A meeting has been set up on Monday, January 10, 2000 between the various
departments with concerns and the applicant's team. The following issues
are not resolved, and will be discussed in further detail at that meeting:
• The configuration of the parking lot,
• the 2-way alley access from Maple,
• the alley intersection with Laporte Avenue,
• the mid -block crossing of the spine across La Porte Ave,
• the notion of a one-way alley heading north.
m. The minutes from the 12/16 utility coordination meeting indicate under the
Howes Outfall issues that the alley will be converted to one-way, north
bound. Having the alley one-way northbound creates some problems. First
of all, the parking lot entrance off of Mason is being required by Engineering
F1