HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.A.T. 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CENTER PDP & FDP - 53-85AV / AZ - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (3)Commu�y Planning and Environmental �vices
__
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
M. ay 25, 2001
City of Fort Collins/Operations Services
c/o Steve Seefeld
117 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580
Dear Steve,
Staff has� reviewed your revisions documentation for the Communit�
Horticultu_re Ceater (C.A.T. 22na Filing) - Project Development Plan (PDP)
that was submitted to the City on April 20, 2001, and would like to offer- the
following comments:
Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Companq (Excel Eaergies) stated
that any relocation of existing gas lines will be at the cost of the
developer. Replacement of culverts should include sleeving for e�sting or
new gas mains.
2. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office stated that they have no concerns or
comments regarding this development proposal.
3. Doug Moore of the City's Natural Resources Depa�tment indicated thaf
Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) is not a native plant species
to Fort Collins. The Fort Col_lins LUC requires Fort Collins native plant
species to be planted in natural area buffers, as set forth in Section
3.4.1(E) (2) (b) . Please contact Doug, at 224-6143, if you have questions
about his eomments.
4. Peter Barnes of the Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a. Label ramps at the hanelicapped parking areas.
b. This site is within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. If
the developer wants wall signs they'll have to show the wall sign
locations (but not content or size). This is a repeat comment.
281 N�rth College Avenue • PO. Box 58U • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 •(97�) 221-675� • FAX (970) 416-2020
� J
C�
c: No new building elevations drawings were submitted with the
revisions. The proposed wall signage locations with the previous
submittal may not comply with the City's S'ign Code. This is a
repeat comment.
d, The proposed sign on Sheet SD 101 does not comply with the City's
Sign Code. See Section 3.8.7 of the Land LJse Code (LUC�. �
e. The building envelopes for all buildings (incluciing accessory
buildings like the shelter, pump house, etc,) need to be shown and
dimensioned on the Site Plan. The envelopes must be tied to the
nearest property line, for fieid loeation purposes. This is a repeat
comment.
f. The maximum fence height along Centre Avenue is limited to 4' for
any portion of the fence that is closer fhan the building setback
from the street. This is set forth in Section 3.8.11(C) (1) of the LUC.
g: Add the standard notes to the Landscape Plan regarding
Landscape Materials, Maintenance, and Replacement, as set forth in
Section 3.2.1(I) of the LUC. This includes the assuranee that the
landscaping will be installed and properly maintaine- d, as set forth
in Section 3.2.1(I) (4) . Also, if there are existing trees on this site the.
tree protection, replacement, and specifications must be
addressed, as set forth in Seetions 3.2.1(F) and (G) of the LUC.
Please contact Peter, at 221=6760, if you have questions about his
comments.
5. Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planaing Department offered the
following comments: �
a. Continue a concrete sidewalk across drive aisles (see the red=lined
Site Plan that is being forwarcied to the applicant).
b. Please address the bus parking location while kids are attending
their programs.
Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about his
comments.
� �
6. A eopy of the comments received from Wes Lamarque of the Stor�wateY
Util_ity is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on
red-lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the applicant.
Please contaet Wes, at 221-6681, if you have questions about his
comments.
7. A copy of the conmments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering
Departmeat is attached to this comment letter. Additional 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.
8. A copy of the comment received from Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastew�ter
Departmeat is attached to this eomment letter. Additional comments are
on red-lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please
contact Jeff, at 221-6674, if you have questions about his comments.
9. The Technical Services Department offered the follovcring comments:
a. The subdivision plat matches the legal description and the
subdivision plat eloses OK.
b. There are several references to a note on Sheet 1 but there are no
notes on Sheet 1. Should nofiee be changed to note?
c. Please show recording information for Centre Avenue.
d. The note about the "Sherwood Lateral Easement to be Determined"
_ _ ....
is confusing. What is to be determined?
Please contact Technical Services, at 221-6588, if you have questions
about these comments.
10. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort indicated that no transit stop location is
shown on the plans. New transit seryice on Centre Avenue is seheduled
to begin sometime in 2002, upon adoption of the Transfort Strategie
Plan. '
11. AT&T Broaclband (cable TV) indicated that they have no concems or
comments regarding this development proposal.
�
�
The following eomments and concems were expressed at the weekly Staff
Review meeting on May 16, 2001:
Transportation Planning (Tom Reiff�
12. Where is the student bus parking and wa:iting going to occur on this site?
13. The cross-walk aeross Centre Avenue should continue the concrete
paving treatment.
14. Most of Transportation Planning's issues have been addressed and
resolved.
Stormwater Utilitv (Glen Schlueter�
15. The 500-year floodplain will affect this site.
16. The off site storm drainage basin must be larger than the applicant is
providing for. This is associated with the realigned ditch.
17. Is the off-site turnaround on a wetland? Has the wetland been mitigated?
18. An off-site drainage easement is needed.
19. 1Vo overnight parking can. occur on this site. The storm drainage
calculations for the parking lot have not been verified. �
20. Most of Stormwater's comments appear to be repeat comments.
Transfort (GavLene Rossiter�
21. They want a transit stop just north or south of the entry into the parking
lot.
Natural Resources (Doug� Moorel
22. There may be some wetland issues:
23. The Landseape Plan is showing some non-native plant species is areas
where they should be native.
24. Has the City's "art in public plaees" program been .considered in this
facility?
�
Plannin�
�
25. On the subdivision plat, There are Notary Public signature bloeks that
reference Boulder County. If the City Manager's and CSLTRF President's
signatures haye to be notarized, will a notary from Boulder be coming up
to do this? Should the reference be changed to Larimer County? This is a
repeat comment.
26. Relating to the required "build-to" line set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2) of
the Land Use Code, to avoid having to request a modification of the
standard the applicant must demonstrate how one of the exceptions in
Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(d) apply. In this case, it is Exception #1. However,
there are no sidewalks from the children's plaza and the area is fenced,
prohibiting direct pedestrian aecess. Should there not be some
pedestrian connectiyity?
27, What is the purpose of all the fenee surrounding this facility? Is there a
need for'security? Can the fence be more decorative?
28. Additional comments are, on red-lined plans that are being forwarded to
the applicant.
This concludes the staff comments that have been received. Additional
comments may be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and
outside reviewing agencies.
Under the City's development review process and schedule there is a 90-day
plan revision resubmittal time-frame (from the applicant to the City)
mandated by the City. The 90-ciay turnaround period begins on the date of
this comment letter (1VIay 25, 2001) prepared by the project planaer in the
Current Planning Department. In this case, a resubmittal must be made
no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 23, 2001. Upon receipt, the
revisions will be routed to the appropriate City degartments and 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 diseussed
and it will be deterinined if the project is ready to go to a public hearing before
an Administrative Hearing Officer (or the Planning and Zoning $oard if any
modifications of standards are requested) for a decision.
Please return all drawin�s red-lined by Citv staff with subaaissioa of pour
revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be
resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please contact me
at 221-6341 if you have questions or concerns 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
xcc Engineering
Zoning
Stormwater Utility
Light 8s Power
Poudre Fire Authority
Transportation Planning
Traffic Operations
Natural Resources
Advance Planning
Parks Plann-ing/Jim Clark
EDAW, Inc.
POUPPIRT Architects
Sear-Brown
Project File #53-85AV
•I'
���-�
�- /,� /'�-�
���-�I
-
�
.
i.
Project:
-� ;
Planner: ���� �c �—
fngineer: ����r �/,�� � .
�
oare:
Tra�ic Operadont: .
4
� Irems Reque�ted � NcQlinc�' itemj Bcing 8eturncb � �� .
� .. .
Site land� Plac , Dtill �Orainagc R r Other Iremt flc uired S(te land Plat � Utili Draina e 8 t Other Itemt Btl fleturned
fi�gincering �- k � _ � �
Srormwater X �_ � �, ; � _ � � . -
� .
Water/Wattewate � � x x � . .
tra�ic Operationt , � . .
tranr. Planning � �
Trantfor� � . ,
� .
Natural Retourctt . �
Park Planning .
totait Cv � '. � � ! � � _
Other: � . . � � . �
Note::All redllne� Itcm� �houlQ be retumed�witfi tfie retubmittal/ re�iilonr, '
�(e� � �-�� e� �� �n�P- .
,�
,
;
�
i �
�
�■
.,
,:
�
. :k
�
i �
REVISIOI�TT
COTliIMENT SHEET
DATE:� April 20, 2001 TO: Stormwater
PROJECT: #53-85AV CAT 22nd Filing, Community
Horticulture Center - PDP — Type I(LUC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
1��Iay 16, 2001
allo Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE /DENT/FY YOUR REDL/NES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
Please note that further comments may arise once additional information is provided. Please
provide written responses to these comments and the redlined comments on the plans (tliis can be
done by simply by writing them nextto the comments in the plans). This will kelp speed the
review time of this project. If you have any questions about the.se comments or tlie project,
please feel free to contact Wes Lamarque at 416-2418.
1. Please provide the following calculations for all on-site and off-site drainage facilities: riprap
sizing, and spillway sizing.
RESPONSE:
2. Please provide drainage easements for all water quality ponds, channels, swales, storm
sewers, and culve.rts on the plat.
RESPONSE:
� . $}e�,e OL�
V�1arc U;ta.�
E �DV}�r
CI�CK AERE IF YOU WISH TO REGEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
D�t'�at Site kDrainage Report Signatuf�er 1� 0 i
k UtiTitty � Redline Utility � Land�pe
City of Fort Collins
� � � '
... �,.
a
Erosion/Sediment Control Comments
_
1. While the plan seems to be generally good, it is difficult to determine what some of the
BMP's are, or what the sequence of revegetation/mulch BMP's is. Is the area between Spring
Creek and the new swale across the property near the parking lot to be seeded prior to
mulching for "over-wintering?" What is happening to the area south of this swale to the
south property line (seed, mulch)? What 'is the sediment trap in the middle of the property ,
south of Spring Creek? Please look at the plan and try to clarify these types of issues, and as �
needed, put notes or other directions on the plan (no one in the fie.ld construcfing this will
read the report).
Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional review comments,
i
HortCenter-2.
Page 3 of 3
� P
������
C O��IE�TT SHEET
c;urrent rlann�g
DATE: Apri120, 2001 DEP'I': ENGI�ERI1oTG
PROJECT: #53-�5A'V C.A.T. 22°d, Com�un_ity I3orticultural Ctr.
PL,A.�TER: Steve Olt �
E1�TGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be �eeeived by: May 16, 2001
❑ No Problems
C�1 Problems or Concems (see below or attached)
General Comments:
1. In terms df a submittal, typically the City requires separate site and landscape plans for the City '
Planner to process and approve, these documents do not need a grading plan. The utility plan set
should encompass the utility plan.
2. The site and landscape plans show a corineetion being made out to Roland Moore Drive for what I
understand is for maintenance vehicles. Howevei, it appears on the utility plan that the second
entrance off of Roland Moore Drive is not planned for presently and a driveway cut is being created
for futiire access only with no internal improvements. Because no future grading or detail of this area
is shown on the utility plan, the site and landscape plays should sliow tliis area as future
improvements and that a minor amendment is required for this. It is suggested that the fizture grading
and improvements be shown on the utility plans at this time in order to not need a reyision or
subsequent submittal to the utility plans for the minor amendment approval: In addition, it might be
of benefit to show the grading at this time as Engineering requites miriimal or no drainage from the
private drive going over the sidewalk out to the public st�eet. Deterrriiriing future grading now might
help ensure that the design will be able to m�n�m»e or eli.muiate flo�vs from the sidewallc out to the
public street in accordance with City Engineering criteria.
3. The site plan shows a sidewalk along the south part of the site (as well as perhaps an additional
sidewalk offsite?) These sidewalks are not shown on the utility plans.
4. Coordinate between site, landscape and utility plans.
Utility Plan Comments "
1. The General Notes lias since been revised. Replace the general notes on the utility plan covei sheet
with the attached. This is also available in electronic fomzat.,
2. The eover sheet needs typical title block, revision block, drawing title and sheet number information
that is included on subsequent sheets.
3. Offsite grading, a temporary tumaround and perhaps draina.ge easements are required based on ttie
Date: Mav 24, 2001 Signature: __ __
PL- EASE SEND COPIES OF MA.RI�ED REVISIONS
0 Plat C� Site 0 Utility 0 Landscape ❑ Draina.ge ort � NO COMMENTS-SUBMIT MYLARS
information on the grading plan. Letters of intent liy the offsite properiy owner(s) are required prior
to hearing for the project: The .signed easements aze required after hearing with the final compliance
sub�ittal.
4. Where is the street striping plan for Centre Avenue and the Centre Avenue/Roland Moore Drive
intersection? �
5. The design of Roland Moore Drive does not meet horizontal layout criteria A street centerline radius
of 551' is proposed and 610' is required (600' under the recently adopted Larimer County Urban
Area S�eet Standards). In addition a tangent length of 70'+ is shown out to the intersection of Centre
Avenue. A minimum of 150' in tangent length is required. If this alignment is fixed because of
commitments fiom neighboring properties, a variance request is at least required to justify the design.
6. The vertical curve lengths are too short for the crest curves, K values of60 are required. .
7. Provide the future potential alignmerit of Roland Moore Drive into the plan set that JR Engineering
had provided separately. 'This can be labeled as for reference only.
8. The urigation drawings don't appear to be needed in the plan set, unless required by
Water/Wastewater.
9. High points on the parking lot(s) should be shown to distinguish where gii�ade breaks occur and
illustrate the amount of drainage being direeted across a public sidewalk.
10. Provide a detail of the driveway approaches out to Centre Avenue and Roland Moore Drive, the
"New Driveway Approach" detail in the City Engineering standards book would appear to be
appropriate,
1 I. Ensure that the City Approval Block on all sheets are the same as the cover sheet. (replace Director of
Engineering with City Engineer, add Natural Resources, etc.)
Plat Comments
1. The first sheet of the plat was not apparently included in the submittal. Note that the certificate of
dedication and notice of other documents provisions were recently updated and attached.
2. It may be of benefit that areas noted on the plat as emergency access easement are also noted as an
access easement (such as access and emergency access easement); the present designation implies
that the easement is exclusive to only emergency services and other uses such as general access are
not allowed.
3. (As no sheet l for the plat was received, it is not known whether this previous comment was
addressed.) The plat appears to be platting land that was/is a part qf the Wind Trail Townhomes
P.U.D. First Replat Tract C. Please proyide evidence that this plat has the.ability to plat this area of
land. Otherwise, it appears that an authorized representative(s) of Wind Tiail Townhomes would
ha.ve to be signatories to the plat.
4. It doesn't appear pedestrian access easements were dedicated for the trail system.
5. As no sheet 1 was reeeived to verify, ensure that the ditch company is a signatory on the plat..
Site and Landscape Plans:
1. Coordinate the design with the utility'plans to ensure that all improvements proposed are consistent
between plans.
2. The garking lot aazea/maintenance area for the azea that takes vehiculaiaz access to Roland Moore Drive
needs to be indicated as future phasing as it is not shown on the utility plan set This should be
relooked at by the City as a minor amendment process.
(Additional comments may be made with the next.submittal.)
Development Review Comments - Page 2
� . A
�- , ,
COl�Ili�IEl\TT SI-�E�T
DATE: Apri120, 2001 DEPT: Water/v6�astewater
PROJECT: #53-B�AV CAT 22°d F'iling, Con�n�unity
I�orticulture Center — PI)P — Type I(LUC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
_ __
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
➢ As previously indicated, per our meeting in the field-with Jim Clark,
provide an access road to the necessary manholes, which is capable of
supporting a fully loaded semi truck.
➢ Provide the required landscape/utility separarion distances on the landscape
plans. -
➢ Show and label all fittings, thrust blocks, valves, lengths of pipe, type of pipe,
etc. on the overall utility plans.
➢ As previously indicated, maintain a 10-foot separation distance between existirig
sewer mains and storm sewer inletloutlet structures.
➢ Show and label all water/sewer lines in all views of landscape, site and utility
plans.
➢ 250 feet of pipe is unaeceptable for a fire hydrant lateral. If a fire hydrant is
requiied in the parking area location as shown on the overall urility plans, then
extend a hydrant lateral from Center Avenue.
➢ Avoid low angle and multiple crossings of water, sewer and storm sewer lines.
➢ Sanitary sewer mains ma�t only be extended 2 feet from a manhole or must
terminate in a manhole. �
➢ Include the standard detail for a 1%2"-2" meter pit with the next submittal.
➢ See site, landscape and urility plans for other comments. ,
Date: S_i� -o� Signature:
CHECK HERE.IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
X Plat X Site Dr�inage Report _Uther
Y Utility X Redline Utility X Landscape
City of Fort Co11'ins