Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY TECH. PARK, HEWLETT-PACKARD - PDP - 12-97D - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)• .r outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an opening on the agenda. Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. Also, the number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet (both sides). You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments. Sincerely, eP hnOlt Project Planner cc: Engineering Stormwater Utility Zoning Water/Wastewater Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Advance Planning Hewlett-Packard JR Engineering Michael Barber Architecture Project File #12-97D going to public hearing. 29. What is the applicant's expectation about the timing for a public hearing? 30. Directional handicapped ramps are being proposed. Stormwater (Basil Harridan) 31. The 90% submittal is more like a preliminary submittal. A SWMM Model is needed. A sense of phasing for the project must be considered. The current off - site assumptions may not be sufficient. All of this may affect the schedule for this project, including the timing for a public hearing. 32. The storm sewer from this site to Rock Creek must be built. It is the "whoever goes first" situation regarding whether this development or Willow Brook builds the storm sewer. A separate set of plans is needed for this off -site improvement. 33. Who will do and when will the improvements along the east side of Cambridge Avenue be required? Transportation Planning (Kathleen Reavis) 34. Is the TIS adequate for interim and final conditions? 35. The comments from September and October, regarding bicycle parking and pedestrian crossings, have not been addressed. 36. Is this a true pedestrian campus? Does there have to be through access drives between parking lots? 37. What is the status of the intersection of East Harmony Road and Cambridge Avenue? 38. Pedestrian refuge areas need to be a minimum of 6' wide. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90 day plan revision submittal time -frame (by the applicant to the City) mandated by the City. The 90 day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (December 6, 2000) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case, revisions must be submitted no later than Tuesday, March 6, 2001, by 5:00 p.m. Upon. receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and 19. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a. Several water mains are shown just into the street, adjacent to the curb. This location does not provide the 10' minimum clearance to the electric lines that will be placed between the curb and the sidewalk. b. The developer will need to provide off -site easements, at final grade, from Zeigler Road to Harmony Technology Parkway along the north side of the planned road shown on the plat. C. An additional easement is required at the northeast corner of Harmony Technology Parkway and "Future Street" for a pad -mounted electrical switchgear. Please see the attached copy of Sheet C-17 of the Site Utilities. Please contact Doug, at 224-6152, if you have questions about these comments. The following comments and concerns were expressed at Staff Review on November 29, 2000: Engineering (Marc Virata) 20. Can the north -south pedestrian connection through the middle of the site be for public access and included in a Public Access Easement? 21. What is the timing for the sidewalk along the east side of Cambridge Avenue? Who will do and when will the improvements along the east side of Cambridge Avenue be required? ' 22. Are utility easements along the east side of Cambridge Avenue needed now and who owns the properties? 23. The sidewalk along the south side of East Harmony Road needs to be in an access easement. 24. Where will pedestrian refuge areas be needed? 25. The utility plans are lacking data for streets and intersections. 26. A variance is needed from the City for the driveway cuts. 27. There is inconsistency between plans for this development proposal. 28. Letters of intent for all necessary off -site easements are needed prior to this item 17. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. The November Transportation Impact Study (TIS) shows the Cambridge Avenue and East Harmony Road intersection as a full -movement, signalized intersection on the short term. My (Kathleen) understanding was that this intersection would consist of two % movements on the short term, and be signalized on the long-term. Please explain why the 3/ condition was not used on the short-term analysis. b. My prior Site Plan comments have not been addressed regarding pedestrian walkways (removing a few drive aisle crossings in order to get a more continuous pedestrian system), providing a pedestrian crossing on Harmony Tech Parkway to access Celestica, and providing bicycle parking at the. building entrances. Please revise the Site Plan or let me know why these comments cannot be addressed and met. C. It is OK for the sidewalk to be built on the west side of Cambridge Avenue initially, and the sidewalk on the east side can be built as part of future development. d. I need more details on the intersection design for East Harmony Road and Cambridge Avenue pertaining to the pedestrian crossings on Cambridge and on Harmony, as well as the bicycle lane design. The median noses need to be designed to serve as pedestrian refuge areas on both Cambridge and Harmony, with a minimum width of 6'. Also, I need to see a design for the interim % movement intersection, not just the ultimate full - movement intersection. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments. 18. Matt Baker of the Street Oversizing Section of the Engineering Department offered the following comments: a. This development will have street oversizing participation on Cambridge Avenue (a collector street) and Harmony Technology Parkway (a collector street). b. East Harmony Road along the frontage of this property should ,be designed with this project. This project has the local access street portion responsibility for East Harmony Road. Please contact Matt, at 224-6108, if you have questions about these comments. 9. Representatives of Technical Services (Mapping/Drafting Department) offered the following comments: a. The subdivision plat closes; however, the legal description does not match the map on the plat in several cases. b. Technical Services will need to see the final plat prior to recording and filing. Please contact Jim Hoff or Wally Muscott, at 221-6605, if you have questions about their comments. 10. Doug Moore of the City's Natural Resources Department indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 11. Copies of the Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes - COMMENT SHEET and General Information received from Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, is attached to this letter. 12. A copy of the comments received from Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this comment letter. Red -lined plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Jeff, at 221- 6674, if you have questions about his comments. 13. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional Engineering comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 14. A copy of the comments received from Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this comment letter. Red -lined reports and plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Basil, at 224- 6035, if you have questions about his comments. 15. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department stated that his comments are on a red -lined Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. 16. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that future transit service on East Harmony Road may warrant a new bus stop near this site. The applicant should discuss future improvements that may be needed with GayLene. She can be reached at 224-6195. 6. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority has offered the following comments: a. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6" high numerals on a contrasting background (bronze numerals on a brown brick are not acceptable). NOTE: The proposed buildings shall be addressed off of the "Proposed Public Roads". b. A fire lane is required. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. NOTE: The fire lane needs to be platted as "Emergency Access Easement". C. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Hydrants shall. be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire hydrant. d. These proposed buildings shall be fire sprinklered. e. Street names shall be reviewed and verified by L.E.T.A. prior to being put into service. f. 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. Please contact Michael, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 7. Beth Sowder of Streets stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 8. Craig Foremen of Parks Planning stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. C. As the street south of Buildings A & B will be considered public, any building ID sign greater than 4 square feet per side will require approval and permitting through a separate process. The project.ID sign is also approved and permitted through a separate process: Please remove the sign locations from the Site Plan.. d. Indicate all ramped sidewalk intersections with the symbol "R" on the Site Plan. e. On Building C a "typical building footprint" is shown. Does that.represent the same footprint on Envelopes A, B, D, E, and F? It is not clear with different square footages shown. It is possible that a modification for the amount of proposed parking may be required. The total floor area proposed is 750,000 square feet in the 6 buildings. In the Harmony Corridor District the maximum parking ratio for General Office is 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable building area. This allowance is dependent on the parking ratio satisfying either of 2 criteria as set forth in Sections 3.2.2(K)(2)(c)2.a & b of the LUC. However, even at 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the maximum number of spaces allowed is 3,375, which is less than 3,769 spaces as indicated on the Site Plan. g. The Building Elevations as submitted are somewhat confusing. Are all the buildings the same elevations, and shouldn't there be elevations for all four side of Buildings A through F? h. The Landscape Notes on the Landscape Plan need to include the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) issuance requirement of no CO without landscape completion of financial securement of 125% of the landscaping (materials and labor). Please see Section 3.2.1(1)(4) of the LUC. Also, show phases and phase lines if landscape phasing is to be done. If there is to be parking lot lighting the poles should be shown on the Site and Landscape Plans. Tree locations should not interfere with pole lights. Also, show any exterior building lighting on the Building Elevations. The internal sidewalk system should be shown as connection to buildings/envelopes. Please contact Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Rick Lee of the Building Inspection Department stated that a copy of the various codes that the Fort Collins Building Department will enforce is attached to this comment letter. With limited information provided there are not Uniform Building Code (UBC) concerns apparent at this time. Commur Planning and Environmental S vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins December 6, 2000 BHA Design, Inc. c/o Angie Milewski 4803 Innovation Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Angie, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Harmony Technology Park, Hewlett- Packard Campus — Project Development Plan (PDP) that was submitted to the City on November 16, 2000, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. Gary Huett of Public Service stated that the internal front lot utility easements appear to be adequate; however, PSC needs a 20' wide utility easement that does not overlap other easements (ditch easement) adjoining the south line of East Harmony Road. 2. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Digital (cable television) has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 3. A copy of the comments received from Terry Farrill of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Terry directly if you have questions about his comments. 4. Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Zoning will need some kind of percentage for the potential secondary uses deemed non -accessory, such as those opened to the public, to ensure that they do not exceed 25% (referencing Section 4.21(D)(2) of the Land Use Code). b. On the Site Plan, show building envelope and footprint dimensions and relative distances to the closest property line(s). 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 5801 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020