Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIMBERLINE CHURCH PROPERTY ODP - ODP210003 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com October 6, 2021 City of Fort Collins Mr. Jason Holland 281 N College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: Timberline Church Property ODP Dear Jason, Thank you for providing comments on the Timberline Church ODP which was received on July 30, 2021. Our team’s comment responses are detailed on the following pages. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions by phone, 970-409-3414 or by email, rmcbreen@norris-design.com. Sincerely, Norris Design Ryan F. McBreen Principal 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com Comment Summary: Department: Development Review Coordinator Contact: Todd Sullivan, 970-221-6695, tsullivan@fcgov.com 1. I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting processes. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your team. To best serve you, please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me informed of any phone conversations. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. 2. As part of your resubmittal, you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why comments have not been addressed, when applicable, avoiding responses like noted or acknowledged. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. 3. Please follow the Electronic Submittal Requirements and File Naming Standards found at https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/files/electronic submittal requirements and file naming standards_v1_8 1 19.pdf?1566857888. File names should begin with the file type, followed by the project information, and round number. Example: UTILITY PLANS_PROJECT NAME_PDP_Rd1.pdf Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. 4. Resubmittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for routing the same week. When you are ready to resubmit your plans, please notify me advanced notice as possible. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. 5. LUC 2.211 Lapse, Rounds of Review: Applicants, within one hundred eighty (180) days of receipt of written comments and notice to respond from the City on any submittal (or subsequent revision to a submittal) of an application for approval of a development plan, shall file such additional or revised submittal documents as are necessary to address such comments from the City. If the additional submittal information or revised submittal is not filed within said period of time, the development application shall automatically lapse and become null and void. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. Temporary Service Changes - City of Fort Collins Development Review 6. In order to continue providing thorough reviews and giving every project the attention it deserves, 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com the City of Fort Collins is implementing temporary changes in how we serve our development customers. As you may be aware, we are experiencing staff shortages in a number of key departments, which has begun to impact the timeliness of our reviews. We recognize that development and construction play a critical role in our community’s vibrancy and economic recovery, and we have been exploring options for mitigating impacts to our customers. As a result, we will be making some temporary service level adjustments. Currently, one additional week of review time will be added to all 1st and 2nd round submittals (increase from 3 weeks to 4 weeks). Lengths of subsequent rounds of review will be considered after each round of review. Also, Completeness Checks will be performed on all initial and Round 2 submittals during this time. Please reach out with any questions or concerns. Response: Comment has been noted, thank you. Department: Planning Services Contact: Jason Holland, 970-224-6126, jholland@fcgov.com 1. 09/14/2021: FOR HEARING: ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST NEEDED FOR SECTION 3.6.3: The ODP staff report will need to include an analysis of Section 3.6.3 “Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards”. Staff concludes that the majority of this section is infeasible, and an Alternative Compliance request is required from the applicant to address section 3.6.3. 3.6.3)(C) Spacing of Full Movement Collector and Local Street Intersections With Arterial Streets. “Potentially signalized, full-movement intersections of collector or local streets with arterial streets shall be provided at least every one thousand three hundred twenty (1320) feet or one-quarter (¼) mile along arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature.” Staff comment: Between Custer and Vermont Drive – 2,400 feet spacing. Staff comments: additional street connections are infeasible due to the existing church development – the parking lot cannot be retrofitted with street sections (public or private). (D) Spacing of Limited Movement Collector or Local Street Intersections With Arterial Streets. “Additional nonsignalized, potentially limited movement, collector or local street intersections with arterial streets shall be spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet between full movement collector or local street intersections, unless rendered infeasible due to unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature.” Staff comments: same as above -- Between Custer and Vermont Drive – 2,400 feet spacing. Would we say this is infeasible due to existing development – their parking lot cannot be retrofitted with a street, and therefore the 660’ spacing (such as provided with Rigden Farm) is infeasible. (E) Distribution of Local Traffic to Multiple Arterial Streets. “All development plans shall contribute to developing a local street system that will allow access to and from the proposed development, as 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com well as access to all existing and future development within the same section mile as the proposed development, from at least three (3) arterial streets upon development of remaining parcels within the section mile, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature. The local street system shall allow multi-modal access and multiple routes from each development to existing or planned neighborhood centers, parks and schools, without requiring the use of arterial streets, unless rendered infeasible by unusual topographic features, existing development or a natural area or feature.” Staff comments: same as above, no street system is proposed with the ODP due to existing development and the infeasibility of retrofitting the overall development with streets. Response: A formal Alternative Compliance Request is included with this resubmittal addressing the review criteria above and the challenges we have faced with meeting Section 3.6.3 of the LUC. 2. 3.6.3 (F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels. “All development plans shall incorporate and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved development plans or existing development.” Staff comment: Compiles, there are none to be continued. The second part of (F) reads as follows: “All development plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelopable land.” Staff comments: Section (F) would require that a street connection be stubbed to provide an east access point to the CSU property, and no such access is proposed. Item (F) does not have infeasibility as an option, and the other items do (C, D, and E). This can be processed along with sections C-E with an Alternative Compliance request per LUC 3.6.3(H): 3.6.3(H) Alternative Compliance. Upon request by an applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative development plan that may be substituted in whole or in part for a plan meeting the standards of this Section. “(1) Procedure. Alternative compliance development plans shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this Section. The plan and design shall clearly identify and discuss the alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards of this Section.” “(2) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Division equally well or better than would a plan and design which complies with the standards of this Division, and that any reduction in access and circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com maximum extent feasible.” “In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall take into account whether the alternative design minimizes the impacts on natural areas and features, fosters nonvehicular access, provides for distribution of the development's traffic without exceeding level of service standards, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity and provides direct, sub-arterial street access to any parks, schools, neighborhood centers, commercial uses, employment uses and Neighborhood Commercial Districts within or adjacent to the development from existing or future adjacent development within the same section mile.” Response: A formal Alternative Compliance Request is included with this resubmittal addressing the review criteria above and the challenges we have faced with meeting Section 3.6.3 of the LUC. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sophie Buckingham, , sbuckingham@fcgov.com 1. The alignment of the future access easement will be finalized with a future PDP for the properties currently owned by CSU. A variance request will be required at the time of the PDP. Response: Noted for future PDP submittals showing the future access. Original Comment: The applicant will need to submit a variance request to create the proposed new drive access to the property. The proposed driveway does not meet separation requirements outlined in LCUASS Table 7-3. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com 1. The Transportation Impact Study has been received, review, and general conclusions accepted. Based on the finding in the TIS the future Timberline access should be restricted to right in, right out movements only within future PDP submittals. Response: This has been noted for future PDP submittals at that location. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com 1. The Statement needs to be exactly as shown in the previous comment. Original Comment: Please provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT format shown below. PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88 244 North College Ave, #130 I Fort Collins, CO 80524 www.norris-design.com BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS. IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM (PRIOR CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM) = NAVD88 DATUM - X.XX’. Response: Benchmark has been updated. 2. The legal description should reflect the area shown as part of the ODP. Original Comment: Please add "Timberline Church PUD" at the beginning of the legal description and/or sub-titles to all plans. Response: ODP has been updated to show Timberline church PUD at the beginning of the description.