Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4417 EAST PROSPECT ROAD DAPPAR DOG SALON - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-07-20ALUUM E R COUNTY vlENl() TO: Sarah Flick, Larimer County Planning Department ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 FAX (970)498-7986 FRONT: Traci Downs, Civil Engineer 11 DA7 E: September 4, 2001 St IB.IFCF: Dapper Dog Kernel Special Review — Concept Review Comments (NWT/4 22-07-68) Protect Description/Back round: This is a Special Review proposal for an existing dog and cat salon to expand to a 20-dog kennel facility. The kennel is located on a 1.5-aCi'C commercial zoned site that is on the South side of Prospect and''' z mile cast of I- �5. Fhe site is within the Growth Management Area of Fort Collins. Bordering the site, are single family Iesidcsiccs with home businesses such as a vetermary clinic and a home retail business border the site. Fhe site has an access off of Prospect Road. The section of Prospect that is adjacent to the site has been annexed into the ('ity of Fort Collins and is under the City's jurisdiction. The City ofFort Collins Master Street Plan (Dated October 25. 1999) shows this section as a Minor Arterial. Review Criteria: The intent of the Concept Review -Special Review process is to provide a general description of the project. The materials submitted need to provide adequate information to accurately assess the drainage and transportation aspects for the entire sites Development review staff from this office have reviewed the materials that were submitted to our office -index these guidelines and per the criteria found in the Larimer County Land Use Code, Road Manual, Access Code, Storm -Water Management Manual and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). The following comments are regarding the identified issues, concerns, and technical requirements that need to be addressed with the next submittal: I . Pcr Section 42 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, a Traffic Impact Study for this development may be required if there is a possibility that the site generated traffic may cause less than acceptable levels of service on the adjacent streets, accesses, and intersections. The study would need to address what, i f any. transportation improvements are or will be needed to handle the projected traffic caused by this project. Since the road is under the jurisdiction of the City of Fort Collins, the applicant will need to contact the City Planning and Engineering Departments to schedule a scoping meeting to determine if a study is needed, and if so, determine what the requirements of the study would be. 1 Based on the Citv o'Fort Collins Master Street Plan (Dated October 25, 1999), this section of Prospect is a Minor Arterial. lddul0rall street right-of-way adjacent to the property, may need to be dedicated with this proposal hased on the City right-ot way requirements. The applicant would need to contact the City Planning (6�t4"' and F m� inca:n , Dccartmcuts to determine if additional right-of=way is needed at this location. 3. "fhe access to the site will need to meet the City's access standards and will therefore need to also be a reviewed and approved by them. A right-of-way permit may need to be issued by the City. d. Pei Section 8.63(c) of the LCLUC. non-residential parking areas must be paved within the Growth Management Areas. Based on this requirement, the parking area will need to be paved. The number of on - site parking spaces was not shown on the submitted materials but the applicant will need to verify that the number of .spaces that arc cxistinuproposed will be adequate for the increased use. We recommend that the parking be in conformance with Section 8.6 of the LCLUC_ �\1thou11h the improvements are said to be minimal in the submitted information, our department will still require the applicant to submit to us a drainage plan and report, which is signed and stamped by a professional engineer. The plan and report need to thoroughly explain the existing and proposed drainage functional at this time. Although we do not feel that it is necessary to require these improvements at this time, we recommend that the applicant be held responsible for their portion of the improvements adjacent to their properiy when they are built out in the future. The City has indicated that they are in support of the appeal but also belie) e that applicant should be held responsible for their portion of the improvements in the future. Prior to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearmLs, we will need a formal, written document from the City that states that they support the appeal. The development agreement needs to include an attached cost estimate and the applicant should be required to submit a letter of credit accordingly. The development agreement should include the following conditions of approval: • The right-of-way dedication must be recorded when the development agreement is recorded. • No permits shall be issued until the development agreement has been recorded. • No parking that is associated with this use is permitted on Prospect Road. • A Development Construction Permit is required prior to the commencement of the improvements outside the road right-of-way. • A City of Fo:t Collins Access Permit will be required for the access work within their right-of-way of Prospect Road. • The applicant shall still have the financial responsibility for the adjacent street improvements at such time that the improvements are deemed necessary since the County supported an appeal to constructing the adjacent and off -site street improvements required per Sections 12 and 1.9.3 of the Larhner County urban Area Street Standards. Miscellaneous: Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (Section 9.5 of the LCLUC) will not be required for this proposal in accordance with our Current transportation capital expansion fee policy. Staff Recommendation: Prior to the proposal continuing to the Planning Commission hearing. we would recommend that the comments above are addressed and the information is submitted for review and acceptance. Please feel free to contact me directly at (970) 498-5701 if you have any questions. Thank you. Calida Troxell, 4417 East Prospect, Fori Collins CO 80525 Shear Engineering (Attn:Brian Shear). 406 South College Avenue -Suite 12, Port Collins CO 80525 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department (Attn: Shen Wamhoff) r,le h�Vdcyre�%tplanchk`.prgjectslspecia] review\dapper dog kennel sr\dapper dog kennel sr preliminary 4.doc ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MEMO TO: Matt Lafferty. Latimer Count} Planning Department FROM: Traci Do\vns, Civil Engineer II'�v DATE: October 2. 2003 SUBJECT: Dapper Dog Kennel Special Reriew— Comments (22-07-68) Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Coiorado 80522-1190 (970) 498-5700 F,U (970)498-7986 Project Description/Background: This is a Special RevieN proposal to bring an existing 30-doe kennel facility into conformance yloth the current LCLUC regulations that require a Special Rev ietiN approval for this type of use on a I.5-acre commercial zoned site. "file site is on the South side of Prospect and '/ mile east oft-23. The site is within the Groy h ManaL,cmcnt Area of ort Collins. The site has access off of Prospect Road, v�high is within the City limits and under the City s jurisdiction. The City_ of Fort Collins Master Street Plan (Dated October 25, 1999) shows this section as a Minor Arterial. Comments: Our previous comments have been adequately addressed and therefore, we can support this proposal being scheduled for the PlanninL Commission hearing. Vde would be N-illingto support appro\'al of this special revieN request N ith the condition that the following items are addressed prior to recording the development agreement: I . The construction plans prepared by Shear Engineering need to be revised to reflect the minor comments that the City provided and then the applicant will need to have the Cov sign them. Once that is complete, I N ill need to sign the final plans signify ing County approval. 2. Right-of-\aay dedication for Prospect adjacent to the site is required with the special review proposal (Section 9.7 of the LCLUC). The richt-of-" ay- vN ill need to be dedicated by separate document prior to, or together Nith_ recording the development agreement. The development agreement should include the following conditions of approval: • No parking that is associated with this use is permitted on Prospect Road. • A Development Construction Pennit and applicable fees is required prior to the commencement of the improvements outside the road right-of-waN . • A Ciry of Pon Collins Access Permit and applicable fees ve ill be required for the access work within their right-of-way of Prospect Road. • The applicant shall still have the financial responsibility for the adjacent street improvements at such time that the improvements are deemed necessary since the CounM supported at appeal to itnmediatelV constructing the adjacent and off -site street improvements required per Sections 1.2 and 1.23 of the Larimer Count" Urban Area Street Standards. The development agreement needs to include an attached cost estimate and the applicant should be required to have this amount in an escroN account. Staff Recommendation: The applicant has satisfied Engineering's comments and we support the proposal continuing to the Planning Commission hearing. As stated in previous comments. we support the requested appeals from Section 8.6.3(c) of the LCLUC and Sections 1.2 and 1.9.3 of the LCU.ASS. The Cih has also commented that they support the appeal from Sections 1 2 and 1.0 3 of the LCCASS and the appeal from the access spacing requirements as stated in 'Fable 7-3 of the LCUASS. As a reminder_ Nc will not require Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (Section 9.5 of the LCLUC) to he collected for this proposal since the use at this location has been grandfathered in and the daily trips will not he increasing N ith special reNieN approval Please feel free to contact me directly at (970) 498-5701 if you have any questions. Thank you. c Calida Troxell, 4417 East Prospect, Fort Collins CO 80525 Shear Engineering (AttwBrian Shear). 4836 South College Avenue -Suite 12, Fort Collins CO 80525 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department (Attu: Sheri "amhoff) file h:AdevrevspIan chklprolects�special review dapper dog kennel sr',dapper dog kennel sr pre] iininary 4.doc patterns and drainu e facilities on and near the site. The submitted materials need to include explanations and calculations that veri fv that there will not be an increased runoff, and the proposed improvements do not create any ;iam f icant t han;es to the historic drainage and do not adversely impact the adjacent properties. Additional infocmtion can be found in the Latimer County Land Use Code Stormwater Report Submittal Rcquircments 1, well as in Sect on 2.4.1 of the Larimer County Stormwater Management Manual (L(1SWMM). 6. Phis office will require that the applicant address the issue of erosion control. A narrative needs to be submitted that address all practical erosion control measures that may be necessary for this type of proposal. Proposed erosion control measures must be brief y described in a narrative and also shown on the plan(s). I lie plan must include measures to control erosion and sedimentation during all phases of construction and a plan for permanent erosion control after development is completed. An example of the acceptable format for an erosion control plan can be reviewed in Section 10 ofihe Larimer County Storm Waterivlanagement Manual. Miscellaneous: The applicant will need to submit this proposal to the City of Fort Collins for their review and comment. Per Section 95 o the I( LUC, fransportarion Capital Lxpansion Fees will be required at the time of hinIo ing permit issuance in accordance with duly enacted transportation capital expansion fee reguIaft ons then in effect. Per Section 12.5 of the I CLUC and Section 6.2 of the LCUASS, Development Construction Permit Fees will be required prior to the commencement of any improvements associated with an approved project Other'vfa*or Concerns and Issues: The Larimer County Engineering Department does not have any major concerns or issues with the Concept Review of this Special Review proposal. Staff Recommendation: With the understanding that the review items stated above would be addressed with the next submittal, our department supports this proposal continuing to the preliminary stage. IIowever, if the project does proceed to the preliminary stage, the Engneering Department would like the applicant to keep in mind that the intent of the preliminary submittal is tojustify the feasibility of the project. Therefore, the materials submitted at the preliminary stage need to support that adequate drainage and transportation needs will be met. The applicant hould he aware that our department reviewed this submittal at a concept level and additional information from that staled above might be required once more detailed information has been submitted Please feel free to contact me directly at (970) 498-5701 ifyou have any questions. Thank you. c: Barbara Troxell, 441 ? Fast Prospect, Fort Collins CO 80525 the to `devrevAplanchk',concept review\dapper dog kennel sr.doc City of Fort Collins Engineering Comments on Dapper Dog Salon, 4417 East Prospect Road utility plans. September 29, 2003 by Sheri Wamhoff In the general notes take out the reference under note 5 to it being a 2-lane arterial. It is not classified as a 2 lane arterial, even the detail you have below is a 4 lane ancrial. Can iust sav Arterial withnnt a raicP,t median. In the second part of note 5 please identify what document is being referenced. It is not the street standards. Add the following note to the general notes. 7. General Notes #1, 4, 6 through 10, 16, 18, 22, 23, 27 through 38, 43, and 46 as listed in Appendix E-1 of the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCIJASS) shall apply and be followed for this project. Add the following note to the 3 driveways. Saw cut to lane line (must be at least 2 foot minimum width) or to :enter of lane. Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards. Need to show on the detail and the plan views that this cut and patch is to occur. Please return redlines when mylars are submitted for signature. tMW COUNTY REFERRAL City of Fort Collins COMMENT SHEET Current Planning' COMMENTS TO: Sarah Flick FROM: Engineering TYPE OF MEETING: Larimer Co. Planning Commission PROJECT: Dapper Dog Kennel SR THRU: City of Fort Collins Planning Department PLANNER: Bob Barkeen City comments must be received in Current Planning Department by: NOVEMBER 6, 2002 No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) W CND ail,' �I I / i Date: Signattrre-:i, t � Cltv of Fort Collins i ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MFMO TO: Sarah Flick, Larimer County Planning Department FROM: Traci Downs, Civil Engineer II DATE: January 21, 2003 Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 SUB.IEC'I : Dapper Dog Kennel Special Review — 2"' Set Preliminary Comments (22-07-68) Project Description/Background: This is a Special Review proposal to bring an existing 30-dog kennel facility into conformance with the current LCLI 1C' regulations that require a Special Review approval for this type of use on a 1.5-acre commercial zoned site. 'file site is on the South side of Prospect and '/2 mile cast of I-25. The site is within the Growth Management Area of Fort Collins. The site has access off of Prospect Road, which is within the City limits and under the City's jurisdiction. The City of Port Collins Master Street Plan (Dated October 25, 1999) shows this section as a Minor Arterial. Review Criteria: The intent of the Special Review process is to provide a description of the project and to provide adequate information to accurately assess the drainage and transportation aspects for the site. Development review staff from this office have reviewed the materials that were submitted to our office under these guidelines and per the criteria found in the Larimer County Land Use Code, Road Manual, Access Code, Storm -Water Management Manual and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). We have also had preliminary discussions with the City since the road will access off of Prospect Road, which is City right-of-way. The following comments arc regarding the identified issues, concerns, and technical requirements that need to be addressed: 1. Per Section 9.7 of the LCLUC, the applicant is required to dedicate any additional right-of-way needed to provide safe and convenient access to the development. Also, per the agreements with the City of Fort Collins and as stated in Section 1.9.2.B.2 of the LCUASS, developments should dedicate right-of-way as specified as being necessary in the adopted Master Transportation Plans for the City and County. Based on the 1-25 Corridor Plan, this section of ]'respect should be upgraded to a 4-lane Arterial, which calls for 114- feet of right-of-way (57 feet half right-of-way). Therefore, per the request by the City stated in the letter dated November 12, 2002, we ask that the applicant dedicate the additional half right-of-way adjacent to their property needed to satisfy the 57 feet half right-of-way required for a 4-lane arterial. 2. ']'he proposed accesses to the site need to meet the requirements stated in Section 9 (9.3.6) of the LCUASS and as shown in Drawing 901 in Appendix A of the LCUASS. The existing two access points do not appear to meet these standards; therefore a site plan with the accesses detailed will need to be submitted to our office to confirm that they will meet the criteria. The applicant is proposing a circular drive for customer access to Prospect in addition to the existing access for the employee parking area. Accesses off of arterial roads should be minimized and our department would prefer that there are only two access points as part of this approval_ However. the spacing requirement as stated in Table 7-3 of the LCUASS allows for 460 feet between high volume driveways accessing an arterial road. I have had preliminary discussions and email coirespondencc with the City regarding the proposed access to the site and they do not seem particularly concerned with the proposed concept for the accesses to Prospect. However, for a distance less than this, the local entity engineer (City of Fort Collins Engineering Department) must approve an administrative variance to the access spacing. Also. the City will ultimately be the entity to review and approve the access plan prior to their issuance of the access permit for the work within their right-of-way so they should remain involved in the review process for the Special Review Application. 3. A plan showing the parking lot layout needs to be provided as part of this special review. Enough parking spaces will need to he included in the parking lot layout to accommodate the seven employees and the clients. I he layout of the parking lot needs to be designed so that all vehicles that enter the property have adequate space to maneuver and exit the property without backing up. Section 8.6 of the LCLUC and Chapter 19 of the LCUASS both include information on the minimum parking standards and requirements for off-street parking in the Growth Management Area. 4. Per Section 8.6.3(c) of the LCLUC. non-residential parking areas must be paved within the Growth Management Areas. I would be willing to support an appeal from this portion of the code since the paving threshold fin gravel roads is 200 trips per day and I do not expect that the trips generated by this use will exceed this threshold. As part of my support of the appeal, I will require the area to have at least 4 inches of recycled asphalt or similar material in lieu of the paving. The cross-section for the parking area will need to he shown and specified on the site plan. 5. This site is within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Therefore, the street improvements as required in Sections 1 .2 and 1.9.3 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards are technically still valid. These improvements would include full street improvements to the south side of Prospect Road adjacent to the site and a 36' wide pavement section to the State Highway to the west, which is the nearest improved arterial. I lowever, our Department would support an appeal to these Public Street capacity requirements as defined in Section 5.1.5 of the Land Use Code for adequate public facilities in a growth management area. This seems appropriate since the existing cross section of Prospect Road does riot include curb and gutter and we do not deem the curb and gutter requirement adjacent to their property or the off -site paving improvements to be necessary or functional at this time. Miscellaneous: i Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (Section 9.5 of the LCLUC) will not be required for this proposal in accordance with our current transportation capital expansion fee policy. i Per Section 12.5 of the LCLUC and Section 6.2 of the LCUASS, Development Construction Permit Fees may be required prior to the commencement of any internal improvements associated with the approved project. i The City of Fort Collins will need to review and approve the access plan and they will issue the access permit for the work within their right-of-way. Staff Recommendation: Prior to the proposal containing to the Planning Commission hearing, we would recommend that the information stated above be submitted for review and acceptance. Otherwise, we do not have any major concerns with the proposal. Please feel free to contact me directly at (970) 498-5701 if you have any questions. Thank you. Canda Troxell, 4417 East Prospect, Fort Collins CO 80525 City of Fort Collins Planning Department (Attn: Dave Stringer and Sheri Wamhoff) City of Fort Collins Engineering Department (Attn: Eric Braeke) file h:AdevrcvAplanchk\projects special review\dapper dog kennel sr\dapper dog kennel sr preliminary 2.doc FMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MEMO TO: Sarah Flick, Latimer County Planning Department FROM: Traci Downs, Civil Engineer 11 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 DATE: June 3, 2003 SUBJFCT: Dapper Dog Kennel Special Review —Review Comments (22-07-68) (970)498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 Proiect Description/Background: "Phis is a Special Review proposal to bring an existing 30-dog kennel facility into conformance with the current LCLUC regulations that require a Special Review approval for this type of use on a 1.5-acre commercial zoned site. The site is on the South side of Prospect and '/1 mile east of 1 25. The site is within the Growth Management Area of Fort Collins. The site has access off of Prospect Road, which is within the City limits and under the Cih's jurisdiction. The City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan (Dated October 25, 1999) shows this section as a Minor Artenal. Comments: 1 met with Shear Engineering and the applicants yesterday to discuss the engineering issues on the site. The following is an update of our meeting yesterday: Shear Engineering left me with the latest version of the plans but I have not had time to review them yet. Based on our meeting though, there are a few minor changes to complete/revise on the plans but otherwise they seem to be a thorough set of plans. I will need to finish up the review of the plans and sign the final approved set, which will need to be signed and stamped by a professional engineer. Per Section 9.7 of the LCLUC and per my comments dated 21Jarl the applicant is required to dedicate additional right of along Prospect. It is my understanding that they intend to do this and that Brian Shear will be working on the dedication by separate document since there will be no Final Plat recorded with this proposal. 'I he applicant is proposing a circular drive for customer access to Prospect in addition to the existing access for the employee parking area. The spacing requirement as stated in Table 7-3 of the LCUASS allows for 460 feet bctwecn high volume driveways accessing an arterial road such as Prospect. Since this section of Prospect has been annexed into the City Fort Collins they are the local entity engineers that need to approve an administrative variance to the access spacing. The applicant has had discussions with Sheri Wamhoff at City and apparently the City is not particularly concerned with the proposed concept for the accesses to Prospect. Brian Shear will be working with the City to document and finalize this variance request with the City and will submit us a copy. The applicant will provide us with a short narrative that describes the daily operations of the facility and the parking spaces that are necessary to accommodate the employees and customers. Brian Shear will be working on an exhibit to accompany the narrative that shows a parking lot layout that can accommodate the employees and the clients. The layout of the parking lot needs to be designed so that all vehicles that enter the property have adequate space to maneuver and exit the property without backing out onto Prospect Road. Section 8.6 of the LCLUC and Chapter 19 of the I.CUASS both include information on the minimum parking standards and requirements for off-street parking in the Growth Management Area. Per Section 8.63(c) of the LCLUC. non-residential parking areas must be paved within the Growth Management Areas. I would be willing to support an appeal from this portion of the code since the paving threshold for gravel roads is 200 trips per day and I do not expect that the trips generated by this use will exceed this threshold. Also, we are requiring paved aprons to the existing right-of-way line at all access points. which w ill help protect the edge of the pavement on Prospect Road. 2 • This site is within the. Fort Collins Growth Management Area. Therefore, the street improvements as required in Sections 1.2 and 1.9.3 of the Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards are technically still valid. These improvements would include full street improvements to the south side of Prospect Road adjacent to the site and a 36' wide pavement section to the State Highway to the west, which is the nearest improved arterial. However, our Department would support an appeal to these Public Street capacity requirements as defined in Section 8.1.5 of the Land Use Code for adequate public facilities in a growth management area- 'phis seems appropriate since the existing cross section of Prospect Road does not include curb and gutter and we do not deem the curb and gutter requirement adjacent to their property or the off -site paving improvements to be necessary or functional, at this time. I will send an email to Sheri Wamhoff with the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department and let her know our position on this appeal and obtain any input or comments from her. f will forward any responses to you for your files. Miscellaneous: i "Iran sport au on Capital Expansion Fees (Section 9.5 of the LCLUC) will not be required for this proposal in accordance with our current transportation capital expansion fee policy. i Per Section 12.5 of the LCLUC and Section 6.2 of the LCUASS, Development Construction Permit Fees may be required prior to the commencement of any improvements associated with the approved project. The City of Fort Collins will need to be invoked with the access work within their right-of-way of Prospect. A City of Fort Collins Access Permit may be required. Staff Recommendation: Prior to the proposal containing to the Planning Commission hearing, we would recommend that the information stated above be submitted for review and acceptance. Otherwise, we do not have any major concerns with the proposal Please Feel free to contact me directly at (970) 498-5701 if you have any questions. Thank you. c: Calida "froxell, 4417 Fast Prospect, Fort Collins CO 80525 Shear Engineering (Attn:Brian Shear). 4836 South College Avenue -Suite 12, Fort Collins CO 80525 City of Fort Collins Engineering Department (Attn: Sheri Wamhofo file h\clevrevAplanc)ik\prgjects`,special review\dapper dog kennel srAdapper dog kennel sr preliminary 3.doc ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE MEMO TO: Sarah Flick, Larimer Countv Planning Department FROM: Traci Downs, Civil Engineer 11 ID DATE: July 15, 2003, 2003 SUBJECT: Dapper Dog Kennel Special Review — Preliminary Comments (22-07-68) (970)498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 Project Description/Background: This is a Special Review proposal to bring an existing 30-dog kennel facility into conformance with the current LCLUC regulations that require a Speciaf Review approval for this type of use on a L5-acre commercial zoned site. The site is on the South side of Prospect and Y2 mile east of 1-25. The site is within the Growth Management Area of Fort Collins. The site has access off of Prospect Road, which is within the City limits and under the City's jurisdiction. The City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan (Dated October 25, 1999) shows this section as a Minor Arterial. Comments: I. I have reviewed the plans prepared by Shear Engineering and I have made several redline comments on the plans that 1 will return to the applicant's engineer with a copy of this memo. 1 will need to review the revised plans and sign off on them prior to this proposal being scheduled for the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearings. 2. As discussed in our meeting with your supervisor Rob Helmick, the City of Fort Collins will need the opportunity to review, comment and sign off on the plans for this proposal. There will need to be a signature block on the plans for the City Engineering Department since they will need to issue the permit for all work within the right-of-way. This should be done prior to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearings. 3. Per Section 9.7 of the LCLUC and per my comments dated 21 Jan03: the applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way along Prospect with special review proposal. The right-of-way will need to be dedicated by separate document since there will be no Final Plat recorded with this proposal. The applicant and their engineer should be working on this and a rouem draft of the dedication should be submitted to our office prior to this proposal being scheduled for the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearings. 4. The Citv Fort Collins will need to approve an administrative variance to the access spacing for the proposed circular drive and the existing employee access will not meet the required spacing as stated in Table 7-3 of the LCUASS. A will need verification that the City supports the proposed access plan prior to the Plannin Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearings. 5. The applicant needs to provide us with a traffic memorandum that describes the daily operations of the facility and the parking spaces that are necessary to accommodate the employees and customers. An exhibit needs to be submitted to accompany the narrative that shows a parking lot layout that can accommodate the employees and the clients and meet the criteria in Chapter 19 of the LCUASS. 6. The applicant is asking for an appeal from Section 8.6.3(c) of the LCLUC, which states that non-residential parking areas must he paved within the Growth Management Areas. I would be willing to support an appeal from this portion of :he code since we are requiring paved aprons to the existing right-of-way line at all access points and I do not expect that the trips generated by this use to exceed the paving threshold of 200 trips per day. Prior to the Planning Commission and Board of Countv Commissioner hearings. we will need a formal. "ritten document from the City that states that they support the appeal. 7. The applicant is asking for an appeal from Sections 12 and 1.9.3 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. These sections require full street improvements to the south side of Prospect Road adjacent to the site and a 36' wide pavement section to the State Highway to the west. which is the nearest improved arterial. Our Department would support an appeal to constructing these Public Street capacity requirements since the existing cross section of Prospect Road does not include curb and �_,uner and we do not deem the curb and gutter requirement adjacent to their property of the off -site paving improvements to be necessary or