The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMIRAMONT OFFICE PARK PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 54-87AN - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSPlanning and Environmen ervices' Current Planning City of Fort Collins April 30, 1997 Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Eldon, Staff has reviewed your documents for the Miramon# Office Park PUD (Parcel T of the Oak/Cottonwood Farm Amended ODP) - Preliminary & Final that were submitted to the City on March 27, 1997, a:nd v►rould like to offer the following comments: 1: A copy of the comments received from U.S. West is attached to this lefter. 2. Jim Slagle ofi Public Service Company stated that the 15' wide utility easement along Boardwalk.Drive appears to. be adequate and that they have no problems with this development plan. 3. The Mapping Department stated that there is an inconsistency in one bearing on the subdivision plat. On the plat, the legal shows the bearing to be S 01 degrees 47 minutes 25 seconds W; and the drawing shows the same bearing to be S 01 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds W. A red-lined copy of the plat has been enclosed with a copy of this letterto the Sear-Brown Group. 4. � Gary Lopez of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Show actual building dimensions on the Site Plan. b. The on-site landscaping,. as referred to in Note 8 on the Landscape Plan, shall include street trees in the City right-of-way as part of the certificate of occupancy requirement. This elarification should be made part of the note. c. This property is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District; therefore, the proposed wall sign. locations must be shown on the building elevations � (as per Section 29-593.1 of the Sign Code and All Developmenf Criterion A-2.14 of the Land De�elopment Guidance System) for review by the Planning and Zoning Board. _ 281 North College Avenue � P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 •(9i0) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 � � � 5. A eopy of the comments received from the Building Inspection bepartment is attached to this letter. � 6. Roger Frasco of the. Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. The proposed' 6uildings exeeed the S,OOO square feet for T'ype V _ construction and must be fi.re contained, construction type upgraded; or fire sprinkled. : b. This request is subject to the LOCAL amendment (table 38B - U-niform Building Code). c. The proposed fire hydrants meet or exceed the requirements of the fire code: . 7. Keith Meyer of the Engineering Pavement section of the Engineering Department stated that imp�ovements to Boardwalk and Oakridge Drives must be outlined in the fnal soils report submittal (i.e. must show boring 1ogs, soils test results, etc.). A traffic study need not be submitted, one was submitted with the preliminary. _ 8. . Roger Buffington of the WaterlNVastewater Department offered the following comments: � a. Coordinate landscape plans wifh the civil design. Include a note on the Landscape Plan for a 4' shrub/water/sewer separation. b. Show loeations on the Landseape Plan for hydrants, watec/sewer mains and services. Provide the requ:i"red landscape/utility separations. c. Provide a 30' wide utility easement for an existing sanitary sewer which currently c�osses the north portion of the property. d: Provide easements for proposed water and sanitary sewer mains, fire hydrants; and curb stops, e. Include standard general notes on the overall utility plan. f. Show and label locations of curb stops and water meters. g. Indicate sizes. of services on the overall utility plan. h: Label stations of services in plan view on the sanitary sewer plan and profile sheet. � j. Show locations of hydrant laterals in profle view. � � t k. See red-lined utility and Landscape Plans for more comments. 9. Bruce Vogel of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: a: The transformer locations will need to be carefully coordinated befinreen the developer and Light� & Power. b. Some trees on Boardwalk Drive may need to be relocated to conform to the streetlight/tree standards (a marked portion of the Landscape Plan is attached to the letter to Cityscape). - 10. A copy of the comments received from the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. 11. A copy of the comments received from the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. 12. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department stated that the plan looks good, with the following comments: a. Detach the sidewalks leading into the site at the south end. b, Get details on the landscape north ofthe self storage project.. c. Verify that no addifional connections to the adjacent church property are warranted. � 13. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. A new traffic impact study is needed. She will review the project further when the study is received. b. The on=site pedestrian connections look good_. c. The bicycle parking is OK. 14. A full set of building elevations is required forthis request. This is a final PUD and all that was receiv.ed with the original submittal was an 11" x 17" general character sketch ofa 1-story and a 2-story building, with no information on height, materials; colors, etc. . 15. This site is Parcel T of the Amended OaK/Cottonwood Farm ODP, which allows uses permitted in the RLM Zoning District. Alternative uses as defined on the Amended ODP are residential scale office or day care. This request is considered to be in,compliance with the approved ODP. . . .� � � 16. This development cannot block storm water flows from the church site to the __ . west� Their outfall is along fhe south property line, going from west to east to Boardwalk Drive, The outfall from this deVelopment is set by the storm water capacity in Boardwalk prive. Lots of on-site detention is propably reguired, 17: How does the layout of this developmenf (placement of buildings, parking lots, . efc:) relate to future uses on the church property to the west? 18. The sidewalk on the north side of the drive into fhis site, opposite Oakridge Drive, should be detached and street trees should be included in the parkway. 19. The sidewalk on the south side of the drive into this site, opposite the drive into Harmony Market at the Red Robin Restaurant, should be detached and street trees included in the. parkway. � 20. General Note 4 on the Site Plan could be somewhat misleading to the developer, who may think that any random changes can be made. The entries to the buildings will be identified with the final building elevations to be recorded with the PUD documents. If the construction plans for the buildings indieate . significantly different entry locations then the City Zoning Department may reguire that an administrative change be proeessed and approved. 21: General Note 5 on the Site Plan should be expanded to state that, similar to the building and pole mounted lighting, access lighting cannot be intrusive into the surrounding neighborhoods (excessive, overly reflective, etc.): 22, General Note 6 on the Site Plan should be modified to state that all rooftop mechanical units will be screened with "...parapet walls, metal decKing...". 23: What is the proposed wattage for the high pressuce sodium light sources, as defined in General Note 7 on the Site Plan? 24. As previously stated in this.comment letter, this property is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign Districf; therefore, the proposed wall sign loeations must be shown on the building elevations (as per Section 29-593.1 of the Sign Code and All Development Criterion A-2.14 of the Land Development Guidance S�/stem) for review by the Planning and Zoning Board: General Note 8 on the Site Plan basically refers to the size and eontent of signage, not location of wall signage. 25. General Notes 11 and 14 on the Site Plan are related. If this development may be phased on a lot by lot basis it would be best to address this in Note 14 so that the developer is not necessarily required to secure the landscaping for the entire project with the first certificate of occupancy. � � �.. 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 new development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The timing is up to the applicant. The revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with thei.r comments due by the 3rd weekly staff review meeting following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting it will be determined if the projec# is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a cJecision and, if so, will be scheduled for the nearesf open date. Planning and Zoning Board public hearings will be held on the 1st and 3rd Thursdays of every montk�, beginning on June 5; 1997. A copy of the new review process is attached to this letter. Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have questions or concerns regarding these comments or if you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the comments. Sincerely, Steve Olt Pro}ect Planner ec: City Engineering City Stormwater Utility City Water/Wastewater � City Light & Power City Advance Planning Vaught=Frye Architects Sear-Brown Group Project File