HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.A.T. 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER PDP & FDP - 53-85AV / AZ - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSCommur� Planning and Environmental �ices
Current Plannin� ��
- —�:,,- - - - -- - - -
December 20, 2000
City. of Fort Collins/ Parks Planning
c / o Jiin Clark
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Dear Jim,
Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Community Horticulture
Center (C.A.T. 22nd Filing) - Project Development Plan (PDP) that was
submitted to the City on November 15, 2000, and would like to offer the
following comments:
1. Gary Huett of Public Service Company (Excel Energies) stated that
they will need to install a 4" natural gas main on the north side of
Rolland Moore Drive in a 15' wide utility easement from Centre Avenue to
Bridgef eld Lane to the west. Will Rolland Moore Drive be constructed off-
site to the west in conjunction with development of the Community
Horticulture Center? The utility easement on the north side of Rolland
Moore Drive will need to continue off-site to the west.
2. The attorriey for the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigation Company and
the Arthur Irrigation Company stated that this project does not affect the
Larimer County Canal No. 2. It does affect the Arthur Ditch but the
irrigation eompany has no objection.
3. Mike Spurgin of the Post Off ce stated that tliey have no concerns or
comments regarding this development proposal.
4. Bruce Vogel of Light 8s Power stated that fhey have no concerns or
comments regarding this development proposal.
5. Beth Sowder of Streets stated that they have no concerns or comments
regarding this development proposal.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 •(970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
� .' . ��' � �
6. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fise Authority offered .the following
comments: ' � '
a. Fire hydrants are required, with a ma�imum sgacing of 600' along
an approved roadway: Eac.h h�drant mu'.st.be capable of delivering
1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi.
No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire
hydrant. , .
b. Add_ress numerals shall be visible from the street front:ing the
property, and posteci on a contrasting background (example:
bronze numerals on a brown brick are not acceptable).
c. A fire lane is requirecl. The fire lane shall be visible by painting and
signage, and it must remain unobstructed.
d. The proposed building exeeeds 5,000 square feet in size and must
be fire contained or fire sprinklered.
e, Poudre Fire Authority requires a"Knox Box" to be mounted on tYie
front of every build_ing equipped with a fire sprinkler system or iire
alarm system.
Please contact M_ichael, at 221-65'70, if you have questions about these
comments.
7. A copy of the comments received from Doug Moore of the City's 1Vatnral
Resources Departaseat is attached to this comment letter. Please
contact Doug, at 224-6143, if you have questions about his comments.
8. Dennis Greenwalt of A�'&T Broadband (cable televfsiora) stafed that
they have no concerns or comments regarding this development
proposal.
9. Rick Lee of the Building Inspection Department has provided a list of
the various codes that the Fort Collins Building Department will enforce
(attaehed) . There is very little 'information provided, so until further
information is proyided they �nd no Code requirements.
10. Peter Wray of the Advance Planning Department sta.ted that they have
no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal.
�
LJ
11. Peter Barnes of the Zoning Depart�eat offered the following comments:
a. This is a"Community Facilit�'. In the E- Employment District it is
a secondary use and cannot occupy more than 25% of the
development plan. Is a modification to this staridard needed?
b. The Site Plan needs a lot of work, such as:
• Building envelopes for all buildings need �o be shown and
dimensioned. �
• What is the driveway width?
• Remove the topo lines and existing trees.
• Label all areas (similar to how they are labeled on fhe
Illustrative Master Plan).
o Label wal_ks and show dimensions.
e Label what all the buildings are (such as uses).
The Site Plan right now is too raw to give detailed eomments.
c. Provide ramps at the handicapped parking area.
d. The City's Land Use Code is unclear as to what the maximum
allowed nurnber of parking spaces is. This must be determined.
e. The proposed wall signage locations may not comply with the City's
Sign Code.
f. This site is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District, If the
applicant wants wall sigris, the sign locations (only) must be shown
on fhe. Buildi .ng Elevations.
g. A Landscape Pla.n (meeting the requirements on Page 7, Project
Development Plan Submittal Requiremerits, of the City's
Development Manual) is needed.
h. Show building heights on the Building Elevations.
i. The building cannot be located more than 15' from the rights-of-
way of the adjacent streets unless it eomplies with one of the
exceptions set forth in Section 3.5:3(B) (2) (d) of the Land Use Code.
Please contact Peter, at 221-6760, if you have questions about his
comments.
� •
12. A copy of tlie comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering
Department is attached to this comment letter. Aclditional comments
may be found on red-lined plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-b750, if you have questions about
his comments. , �
13. A eopy of the cominents recei�ed from Donald'Dustin .of the Stormwater
Utility is attaehed to this comment letter. Additional comments may be
found on red-linecl plans and reports that are being forwarcied to the
applicant. Please contact Donald, at 416-2053, if you have questions
about his comments.
14. A copy of the comments received from Tom Reiff of t.he Transportation
Planmming Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional
comments are on red-lined plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about
his comments.
15. Rick Richter of the Engineering Pavement Department stated that they
have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal.
16. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that the applicant should diseuss
with Transfort the potential for a future transit stop near the site.
17. Representatives of the Mapping/Drafting Department offered the
following comments:
a. The subdivision plat and the legal description do not close-.
b. The curve data for all curves needs to be completed.
Please contact Jim Hoff; at 221-6588, or Wally Muscott, at 221-6605, if
you have questions about their comments.
18. Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, stated that
she has no comments at this time regarding the City's imgation and
water conservation standards.
19. A copy of the comments received from Jeff Hill of the Wate�/Wastewater
Department is attached to fhis comment letter. Additional comments
may be found on red-lined plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Jeff, at 221-6674, if you have questions about
his comments.
�
�
20. Craig Foreman of the Parks Planaing Departmeat state- d that he and
Alison Brady are coordinating the park with you.
The following comments and coneerns were expres5ed at the weekly Staff
Review meeting on December 13, 2000:
Engineering (Marc Virata�
21. The driveway off-set with the NRRC across Centre Avenue, to the east,
could be a problem. The protected left maybe cannot occur. Ward
Stanford of Traffic Operations stated that the alignment eould be
improved.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27,
28.
29.
30.
31.
32..
Is this a minimum or maximum parking allowance type of land use?
Labeling on the Site Plan should be provided. Cannot tell what is what.
Remove the grading (topo) from the Site Plan.
The Sherwood Lateral Ditch Company must be a signer of the
subdivision plat.
Based on the contours, we cannot tell what is going on on=site.
Easements for a temporary turnaround and drainage are needed.
The subdivision plat does not close. Curve data is missing.
It may be necessary to show an emergency access plan on the map.
Who builds fhe Spring Creek trail?
The utility plans are generally lacking a lot of information.
The Sherwood Lateral ditch realignment cannot be doae pr-ior to
this development request going to public hearing for a decision,
Transportation Planning (Tom Reiffl
33.
What type of events are going to occur at this facility? This will determine
the traffic generations.
34. The topo line layer should be turned off of the Site Plan. It is confusing.
❑
35.
36.
Wil_1 there be medians in Centre Avenue?
�
The Transportation Impact Study ignores the bicycle/pedestrian level of
service from the Spring Creek trail to this facility.
37, Because of the larger attendance events planned for this facility, there
will be shared parking with NRRC. How wi11 the� unprotected cross-walk
across Centre Avenue work? ". �
38.
39.
40.
41.
Identify the handicapped parking spaces and provide access ramps.
Lighting at the north end of the site, at the tra:il aecess, is lacking.
How wide is the bicycle/pedestrian trail?
Will bicyclists be riding through this facility on the trails and/or
sidewalks?
S.tormwater Utility (Basi1 Hamdan)
42. A floodplain report anust be provided. This needs to be included with
a re-submittal of the project or the Stormwater Utility will not
, accept the re-submittal.
43.
44.
45.
46..
47.
48.
49.
50.
There are lots of problems with the original submittal. City st�ff and
the applicant must meet to discuss the concerns.
All of the detailed calculations are not included in the information that
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _.
has been provicleci.
Drainage easements are needed.
There are required notes missing from the utility plans.
An adequate drainage plan is needed.
An adequate grading plan is needed.
Show off-site contours on the grading plan.
The drainage facilities for this development should be shown on the
Landscape Plan, when one is submitted.
Y � �
51. Approval from the Sherwood Lateral Ditch Company must be included on
the utility plans.
Traffic Operations (Ward Stanford�
52. Expand and clean up the striping plan;
Natural Resources (Doug Moore�
53. The wetland delineation should be shown on the plans.
54. A mitigation plan for the wetland is required.
55. The square footage of tlie wetland must be shown on the Site Plan.
56. There could be a possible City logo violation with the plans.
57. The Landseape Plan (Illustrative Master Plan) is not adequate. As
submitted; it is not complete.
58. On the subdivision plat, the reference(s) to Boulder County should be
changed to Larimer County.
59. Staff is recommending that the applicant and the City meet to discuss
the development plans.
Plannin�
60. The Site Plan is lacking a lot of information (see attachment from the
City's Development Manual).
61. The Landscape Plan is lacking a lot of informafion (see attachment from
the City's Develo_pment_Manual).
62. Copies of typically submitted Site and Landscape Plans (with the
information normall.y provided with a Prqject Development Plan
submittal) are available upon request.
63. Relating to the required "build-to" line set forth in Section 3,5,3(B)(2) of
the Land .Use_C.ode, to avoid having to request a modification of the
standard the applieant musf demonstrate how one of the exceptions in
Secfion 3.5.3(B)(2)(d) apply. In this case, it is probably would be
exeeption # 1.
� � . .
64. Additional comments are on red-lined plans that are being forwarded to
the applicant.
This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments could be
forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing
agencies.
Under the new development review process and schedule there is a 90-day
plan revisioa resubmittal time-frame (from the applicant to the City)
mandated by the City. The 90-day tuinaround period begins on the date of
this comment letter (December 20, 2000) prepared by the project planaer
in the Current Planniag Depa$tmeat. In this case, a resubmittal aaust be
made no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesdap, March 20, 2001. Upon
receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and
outside reviewing ageneies, with their comments due to the project planner no
later than fhe fhird 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 fhe project is ready to go to a public
hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning
Board for a decision.
Please retura all drawings red-lined bp Citv staff with submission of vour
revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be
resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing $heet. Please contact me
at 221-6341 if you have questions or eoncerns related to these comments. I
would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to
discuss these comments.
Sincerely,
Steve Olt
Project Planner
, � . . �
�
xc: Engineering - �
Zoning
Stormwater Utility
Light & Power
Poudre Fire Authority _
Transportation Planning: . .
Traffic Operations ��
Natural ResouTces
Advance Planning
EDAW,, Inc.
POUPPIRT Arehitects
Sear-Brown
Project File #53-85AV