HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE TOY SHED LOTS 1 AND 2 OF BLOCK 4 OF REPLAT NO 1 OF EVERGREEN PARK PDP - 50 91D - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2)Commut-cy Planning and Environmental -rvices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
March 10, 19994
Jerry Russell
1314 Redcedar Circle
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Dear Jerry,
Staff has reviewed your revisions for the TOY SHED Project Development
Plan (PDP) development proposal that were submitted to the City on February
9, 1999, and would like to offer the following comments:
1. This property is located at the southeast corner of Redcedar Circle
between Conifer Street and Blue Spruce Drive. It is in the I - Industrial
Zoning District. The proposed recreational vehicle, boat and truck
storage use is permitted in this District, subject to an administrative
review (Type I) and public hearing for a decision. However, this Project
Development Plan (PDP) must go to a public hearing before the Planning
and Zoning Board because a modification of a standard is required,
which automatically changes the request to a Type II, P & Z Board
review.
2. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department stated that
development of this site (even for parking/vehicle storage only) will
initiate Light & Power development charges. These charges are estimated
to be $14,500.00, with payment required as a condition of continued
electric service to the existing building. Please contact Doug, at 224-6152
between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., if you have questions.
3. Peter Barnes, Gary Lopez, and Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department
offered the following comments:
a. What kind of "recycled asphalt" will this parking surface be? Will it
be loose crushed asphalt or the kind with an adhesive compound?
b. The actual uses for these two lots must be listed on the Site Plan.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
tz-
GONE DR..' .
V � _
... 1 / • ... ...
Y a::
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: 12 February, 1999 DEPT: Engineering
PROJECT: #50-91D Evergreen Park, Lots 1&2, The Toy Shed-
PDP - Type I
PLANNER: Steve Olt
ENGINEER: Mark McCallum
All comments must be received by: 3/03/99
1BNo Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
0 The dedication statements for each drainage easement should be submitted
separately.
0 Provide accurate legal descriptions for each easement dedication statement along
with exhibits.
0 The access ramp on the site plan should designed the same as the access -
ramp -shown on the utility plan.
0 An additional 3 feet of R.O.W. should be dedicated along the frontage of the
property. Another option would be to request a variance to the parkway width.
c n.�uVc� i2cJiS�oA7S TO (Pd- �� ,
Date: EA//W Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: PL T
® SITE
0 UTILITY
0 LANDSCAPE
C. Solid fencing is required along the rear (east) lot line, in addition to
the front and side (west and north) lot lines. The Site Plan shows a
chain link fence along the rear lot line and the Landscape Plan
shows a solid fence. Please correct this on the Site Plan to show a
solid fence, which is required by the LUC [Sections 3.5.1(J)(2) and
3.8.11(2)].
d. Provide dimensions of all structures shown on the Site Plan,and
label them existing.
e. There still is a question as to whether there will be some sort of
shade cover/canopy over these parking spaces, similar to the other
lot with RV storage. If so, elevations for the proposed structures
should be provided for review.
f. Street trees, selected from a City -approved street tree list, are
required every 30' to 40' along the Redcedar Circle frontages (west
and north sides of the property) as per Section 3.2.1[D][2][b] of the
LUC J. Although the ornamental trees as proposed are on the list
as trees with a mature height of 40' or less, there should be some
larger shade trees included for more of a canopy appearance.
g. Is there a residence on Lot 3? There is a building labeled
Rec. / Office. Should it be Res. / Office?
h. Since the access to Lots 1 & 2 is obtained through Lot 3, should
the legal description include Lot 3?
Please contact Peter, Gary, or Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions
about these comments.
4. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater
Utility is attached to this letter. Also, he is forwarding a red -lined copy of
the drainage report to the applicant. Please contact Donald, at 221-6589,
if you have questions about his comments.
5. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the
Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Also, he is
forwarding easement dedication information and language to the
applicant. Please contact Mark, at 221-6750, if you have questions about
his comments.
6. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the
following comments:
a. Include a note on the Landscape Plan pertaining to
landscape/utility separation distances.
b. Red -lined copies of the Site, Landscape, and utility plans have
been forwarded to the applicant.
Please contact Roger, at 221-6681, if you have questions about these
comments.
The following comments and concerns were expressed at the Staff Review
meeting on March 3rd:
Engineering
7. The sidewalks as shown along the Redcedar Circle frontages do not
match on the site Plan and utility plans.
.ra<
8. A variance request is needed, and must be submitted for review, for the
sidewalk and parkway widths along Redcedar Circle. This request should
be submitted to Cam McNair, the City Engineer. The variance should be
submitted, and a decision given, prior to this development request going ^
to a public hearing for the land use.
9. The City is not asking for additional street right-of-way for Redcedar
Circle along Lots 1 & 2.
Stormwater
10. The site Plan and utility plans do not match regarding the proposed
sidewalks.
11. An easement is needed for the detention pond.
12. The grading plan shows retention in the parking lot. Water quality needs
to be addressed, ideally through a landscaped area.
13. A detail is needed for the outlet chase through the sidewalk.
14. If the surface material changes, then that would change the storm
drainage calculations.
Planning
15. Section 3.5.1 [J] [ 11 of the LUC sets forth a requirement that no areas for
outdoor storage shall be located within 20' of any public street or public
sidewalk. In this case, the applicant wants to place a solid wood fence
approximately 12' behind the curb along Redcedar Circle (public street)
and directly adjacent to the sidewalk along the streets (public sidewalk).
Therefore, it was necessary for the applicant to request a modification of
the aforementioned standard, which has been done. Staff will
recommend approval of this request, similar to what was done on the
previous requests, if the City Engineer approves a variance request for
the widths of the sidewalk and parkway. This action does elevate the
development request to a Type II, Planning and Zoning Board
review.
16. The landscape parkway must be at least 6' in width.
17. How will the plant materials be established and maintained, especially
from a watering standpoint? If an irrigation system is to be provided this
must be identified on the Landscape Plan.
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 no revision date
mandated by the City. The amount of time spent on revisions is up to the
applicant. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City
departments 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 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. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be
resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. You may contact me
at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments.
SSiincceer�elly,, mA
17
Steve Olt
Project Planner
cc: Engineering
Stormwater Utility
Zoning
Light & Power
Water/ Wastewater
Stewart & Associates
Project File
i
R
Item: 1 tea - a 7>
Date: . ►x)
�hFCC�LrfA�
e
FILE: PROJECT PLANNER
ENGINEERING: PAVEMENT
ZONING
BUILDING INSPECTION
LIGHT & POWER
MAPPING / DRAFTING
FORESTRY
FCLWD/ELCOBOXELDER .
FIRE
POLICE
ADVANCE PLANNING
STREETS
R.O.W. PLANNING
WATER CONSERVATION
POST OFFICE
US WEST
PUBLIC SERVICE
SCHOOLS: POUDRE/THOMPSON
CABLE TV
DITCH COMPANY
RAILROAD: UP or BN/CS
REA/DOE/PRPA
Isions Routing Sheet
i �� �'
ti
y
0
o�
Rev. 5-07-97
Project. c am ��-_ -r S�E�
Planner:
Engineer:
Traffic Operations: a�
Date: 3 y
Engineering
itormwater
Water/Wastewate
Traffic Operations
life
We
land
Plat
,A
Items Requested
UtilityDrainage RA Other Items Required
X
x
Redlined Items Being Returned
Site [and Plat UtilityDrainage R t Other items Being Returned
x
X
Trans. Planning
Transfort
latural Resources
Park Planning
totals
2
2
2
�
�
ether:
dote: All redlined items should be returned with the resubmittal/ revisions.
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: February 10, 1999 TO: Stormwater
PROJECT: #50-91D Evergreen Park, The Toy Shed, Lots 1
& .2 - PDP — Type 1 (LUC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, March 3, 1999
No Comment
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
1. The calculations for Pond 1 show a required orifice of 1.35" radius (2.7" diameter),
yet the outlet pipe is 4". Please provide an orifice for this pond outlet. In addition,
please provide a trash screen for the outlets from each pond.
RESPONSE:
-2. As shown with the attached floodplain map, the site contains portions of the 100-year- -
floodplain. Please indicate the location of the 100-year floodplain and identify the
base flood elevation (BFE) on the drainage plan and complete a floodplain use
permit, which was included with the last set of comments.
RESPONSE:
(over)
Date: '-� / v 6 1 `
CHECK HERE 111 YOU WISH M RECEIVE COPIFS OF REVISIONS
_ Plat site Rcpd — Oda
_ Utility Redline Utlty _ Landscape
� • , Fp. Jam.
3. Please provide drainage easements for the ponded areas and show them on the
drainage plan. This is a repeat`comment.
RESPONSE:
4. The paved retention areas designated for water quality are not acceptable, due to the
nature of vehicle storage at the site. Please consider using a landscaped area for the
water quality feature.
RESPONSE:
5. Please call -out the lengths and spillway and top of berm elevations for each of the
spillways on the drainage plan.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redlined report and plans for additional review comments.
EvGmToyShed-2.doc