HomeMy WebLinkAboutCENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2004-07-26Project Development Plan - Community Horticulture Center
Statement of Planning Objectives
11/9/00
1. Applicable City Plan Principles and Policies
a. LU-1.1: Compact urban growth.
The project is centrally located in Fort Collins, within an infill area, and contiguous
with existing vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic routes.
b. CAD-2.1: Functional, attractive, safe, and comfortable civic buildings and grounds.
As a civic facility, the Community Horticulture Center (CHC) will be located in a
central and highly visible location. The architectural quality of the building and
grounds will express permanence and importance. A primary objective for the design
and the programming of the CHC will be to reflect and interpret our local heritage,
and through that create a sense of community identity. The project will be adjacent
to the existing Spring Creek bike trail, and within easy walking distance of the Mason
Street Transit Corridor. The safety and comfort of our visitors will be strongly
addressed.
c. CAD-5.2: Education and awareness of our local heritage.
Throughout our design and the development of our programming, we will be looking
for opportunities to create a local "sense of place", and to educate our visitors about
Fort Collins history, particularly related to horticulture (for example, sour cherry
orchards and lilacs), agriculture (such as with irrigation ditches), climate, and soils.
d. CAD-6.2: Cultural development and participation.
In addition to serving as a recreational and educational facility, the CHC will also
provide cultural services as a venue for art shows, small concerts, and other art -
related programs.
e. ENV-2: Protect environmental resources.
The foremost mission of the CHC will be to demonstrate sustainable horticulture,
including water -conserving landscaping, backyard wildlife habitat, use of native
plants, "organic" gardening techniques, composting, and alternatives to fossil fuel
requiring maintenance practices.
f. ENV-4: Encouraging energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.
The CHC building will be a state-of-the-art facility demonstrating the use of solar
energy, energy efficiency and "green" construction. It will serve as a public
demonstration site with educational programming to extend its impact.
g. ENV-5.1: Protection and enhancement of ecosystems.
The restoration of 5 acres of the Spring Creek corridor will be a major element of our
site development. It will include extensive re -grading of the area to approximate a
Marc Virata - City Horticulture Center
From: Dave Stringer
To: Cameron Gloss, Gregory Byrne
Date: Thu, Dec 21, 2000 5:27 PM
Subject: City Horticulture Center
Greg,
CLRS has asked if they would be allowed to start relocation of an existing irrigation ditch that runs through
their site prior to the development proposal hearing. I knew that we had some discussion regarding the
Linden Park project and were going to allow underground utility work prior to approvals because of the
time constraints being placed upon them by Natural Resources.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Jim Clark has concerns about getting the ditch relocated in the
time frame as specified by the ditch company.
Dave
CC: Cam McNair, Jim Clark, Marc Virata
Page 1
Community Horticulture Center
Responses to Staff Questions & Comments
on Previous PDP Submittal
4/20/01
In a letter dated December 20, 2000, Steve Olt provided us with 64 specific comments and
questions from staff.. associated with their review of our PDP submittal on November 15,
2000. Attached to the letter, there were also five Project Comment Sheets from individual
departments. with further comments and questions. With this submittal, we feel that we have
addressed all of those comments and questions. Many of these have been resolved with our
submitted plans and drawings. For the questions and comments requiring a verbal response,
we provide that here.
l . In item number I of Steve Olt's letter, dated December 20, 2000, Gary Huett with Excel
Energy asked: Will Rolland Moore Drive be constructed off -site to the west on
conjunction with development of the Community Horticulture Center? If so, the utility
easement on the north side of Rolland Moore Drive will need to continue off -site to the
west.
We are only responsible for designing and building the portion of Rolland Moore Drive
that is contiguous with our site, along with a preliminary design of 500 feet further to the
west. Therefore, the answer to the question is "no".
2. In item number 11 a, Peter Barnes with the Zoning Department stated: This is a
"Community Tacility ". 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 standard
needed?
We met with Steve Olt regarding this question. He stated that this project would be
evaluated against the Centre for Advanced Technology Overall Plan, and that a
modification would not be needed.
3. In item number 1 Id, Peter Barnes with the Zoning Department stated: The City's Land
Use Code is unclear as to what the maximum allowed number of parking spaces is. This
must be determined.
In late December Jim Clark met Peter Barnes. Steve Olt, and Tom Reiff to resolve this
issue. Peter, Steve and Tom deduced that the Land Use Code provides no clear direction
for the maximum number of parking spaces for this type of a project. Therefore,
professional judgement was necessary, and it was their consensus opinion that the
proposed size of parking lot was well within an acceptable range, given this type of
project and its anticipated usage.
4. In item number 11i, Peter Barnes with the Zoning Department stated the following:
The building cannot be located more than 15 feet from the right-of-way of the adjacent
streets unless it complies with one of the exceptions set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(d) of
the Land Use Code.
The first exception listed in that section is a description of precisely what we are
planning. It reads "An exception to the build -to line standards shall be permitted in
order to form an outdoor space such as a plaza, courtyard, patio or garden between a
building and the sidewalk. Such a larger front yard area shall have landscaping, low
walls, fencing; or railings, a tree canopy, and/or other similar site improvements along
the sidewalk designed for pedestrian interest, comfort and visual continuity." As can be
seen from the illustrative master plan and the landscape plan, the area between the
building and Rolland Moore Drive will be utilized for a Children's Garden and an
Experiential Garden. These will be intensively planted and landscaped areas with a wide
variety of trees, shrubs, flowers, walkways, patio areas, and low walls. Tall shrubs will
provide a significant degree of visual screening. There will be a security fence (with a
"see through" type of design) and there will be a tree canopy over the majority of the
area.
The Children's Garden and Experiential Garden are included in the second phase of
construction, which will be installed as soon as private funding is secured. That is
anticipated to occur within two years of the facility's opening. As seen in the landscape
plan, the first phase of construction will include an intensively -planted garden along
Rolland Moore Drive, to a depth of 30 feet. This will include the street trees along
Rolland Moore Drive, in addition to extensive shrubs, perennials, and grasses. The area
designated for future development as a Children's Garden and an Experiential Garden
will be planted to an attractive and well -maintained cover crop.
The proposed building setback creates two significant benefits to this project and, by
association, to the community. First, it provides a more pleasurable experience for
visitors inside of the conservatory and greenhouse, as a result of looking out on gardens
rather than a street and its traffic. Second, having gardens in the "front yard" beautifully
announces to the public the purpose of this facility. As a result, it also visually softens
the streetscape in this area.
5. In item number 16, Gaylene Rossiter with Transfort stated: the applicant should discuss
with Transfon' the potential for a future transit stop near the site.
Jim Clark met. with Gaylene on January 8, and her requests for a future transit stop were
followed. We will reserve a location immediately northeast of our entrance sidewalk and
adjacent to the Centre Avenue sidewalk (on top of the Sherwood Lateral box culvert)
that meets her stated criteria.
2
6. In item number 22, Marc Virata with Engineering asks: Is this a minimum or maximum
parking allowance type of land use?
According to Peter Barnes, in the meeting referred to in item number 3 above, this is a
maximum parking allowance type of land use.
7. In item number 30, Marc Virata with Engineering asks: Who builds the Spring Creek
trail ?
As noted on the plans included in this submittal, the Park Planning Department will be
responsible for building the bike trail.
S. In item number 33. Tom Reiff with Transportation Planning asks: What type of events
are going to occur at this facility? This will determine the traffic generations.
In a late December meeting, Jim Clark discussed this with Tom Reiff. In general, the
facility will be used for a broad range of visitations by individuals, families, small
groups, and school classes for enjoyment and education. There is also the intent to use
the facility for relatively small concerts (up to 300 people), wedding receptions, and
other special events. This information, along with visitation estimates, was discussed
with Matt Delich, who incorporated it into his Transportation Impact Study.
9. In item number 35, Tom Reiff with Transportation Planning asks: Wall there be
medians in Centre Avenue?
As previously explained to Tom, we are proposing striped left turn lanes in the middle of
Centre Avenue, but no medians.
10. In item number 36, Tom Reiff with Transportation Planning states: The
Transportation Impact Study ignores the bicyclelpedestrian level of service from the
Spring Creek trail to this facility.
This has been corrected in the revised Transportation Impact Study.
11. In item number 37, Tom Reiff with Transportation Planning asks: How will the
unprotected cross -walk across Centre Avenue work?
At this time, we are anticipating relatively infrequent use of the crosswalk, and for fairly
small numbers of people. With that in consideration, along with the lower speed limit on
Centre Avenue and the long site distance, it seems that a striped crosswalk and pedestrian
crossing signage would be adequate. There are many existing crosswalks in Fort Collins
with no more safety than that, which carry an equal or greater amount of pedestrian
traffic. At any rate, if the usage or safety risk does turn out to be higher than
3
anticipated, we could consider the option of hiring a crosswalk guard to assist pedestrians
during larger special events.
12. In item number 40, Tom Reiff with Transportation Planning asks: How wide is the
bicycle/pedestrian trail?
The existing bike trail on the west side of the site is 8 feet wide. The new trail along
Spring Creek will be 10 feet wide, with a 5 foot wide soft running path parallel to it.
13. In item number 41, Tom Reiff with Transportation Planning asks: Will bicyclists be
riding through this facility?
No, bicycle riding will not be allowed within the fenced -in area of the horticulture
center.
14. In item number 1 of the Transportation Planning Comment Sheet, Tom Reiff suggests:
Explore increasing safety lighting outside of the bike tunnel under Centre Avenue, where
an "off -ramp" trail merges with the main trail.
On February 8, 2001 Jim Clark mentioned this suggestion to Craig Foreman, Park
Planning Division manager. He said that he will research the issue and consider
alternatives.
15. In item number 2 of the Transportation Planning Comment Sheet, Tom Reiff suggests:
Explore the potential to jointly improve the trail with the Parks and Recreation
Department.
As indicated on the drawings in this submittal, the Park Planning Department will be
upgrading the bike trail on this project's site to a ten foot wide concrete trail with a
parallel five foot wide soft running path, in conjunction with this project.
16. In item number 6 of the Transportation Planning Comment Sheet, Tom Reiff asks:
What is the purpose of the diagonal parking in the visitor parking lot?
The diagonal parking is provided for the benefit of the occasional tourist/visitor that
arrives via a truck pulling a camper/trailer or a motor home.
17. In an April 4, 2001 meeting with Steve Olt, Marc Virata, Doug Moore, Steve Seefeld,
Craig Russell (EDAW) and Kay Force (EDAW), city staff asked a question regarding the
anticipated number of visitors and required parking. Here is our response.
It is anticipated that this facility will have an initial peak demand of 150 people, with an
associated parking need for 100 vehicles. This will be accomodated by the Horticulture
4
Center's 72 space parking lot, in addition to the 30 spaces being offered across the street by
the NRRC, for over -flow situations. The installation of the Great Lawn in a future phase of
construction will create the potential for having events that would draw approximately 350
people. Prior to scheduling any such events, however, accomodations for additional parking
would obviously need to be made. This could include the NRRC agreeing to allowing more
overflow parking spaces in their parking lot (at times when they are not needing the
parking) or a similar agreement with a future office building built on the south side of
Rolland Moore Drive. If the parking spaces can not be secured, then the larger events
would not be scheduled.
5
V
J R ENGINEERING
September 26, 2001
39023.30
Mr. Marc Virata
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Reference: Fort Collins Community Horticulture Center — Rolland Moore Drive
Request for Variance for Centerline Radius
Dear Mr. Virata:
The intent of this letter is to request a variance for the centerline radius of Rolland Moore
Drive just west of its intersection with Centre Avenue. Rolland Moore Drive has a street
classification of a major collector. The proposed centerline radius of 551-feet is less than the
radius required by the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, January 2, 2001". The
radius required is 600-feet for a major collector with a 40 mph design speed. This standard is
found on Page 7-7 of the design criteria. Prior to submittal of this plan set, City staff,
Transportation and Engineering, and owner representatives were involved in conversations
regarding the vertical and horizontal design of Rolland Moore Drive. From those discussions
the centerline of the street as drawn was established.
This variance is being requested due to the items listed below:
1) The parcel was sold by CSURF (Colorado State University Research Foundation) to
the City of Fort Collins by description prior to platting the property. The alignment
parallels the property description.
2) The preliminary street alignment attempted to avoid the existing wetlands to the west
of the proposed Horticulture Center.
3) The Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue street intersection was located to the
north as far as possible given the wetlands and property constraints. In addition, this
placement will provide adequate site distance to the south along Centre Avenue.
Approximately 900-ft south from the intersection to the point where Centre Avenue
must cross the Larimer No. 2 Canal, which is approximately 30 feet higher in
elevation than the proposed intersection.
2620 Fast Prospect Road, SWrt 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-491-9888 • Fax: 970-491-9984 • "w v.jrengineering.cotn
September 26, 2001
Mr. Marc Virata
Page 2 of 2
Due to the proximity of this portion of Rolland Moore Drive to Centre Avenue, eastbound
traffic will be slowing for the proposed stop sign controlled intersection. Westbound traffic
will be at relatively low speeds since they had just turned from Centre Avenue onto Rolland
Moore Drive. Therefore, it is not anticipated that any public health, safety, and/or welfare
problems will be created by the varied design.
f you have any questions or comments, or need additional information, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (970) 491-9888. Thank you.
Sincerely,
z
� REG�ST
John E. Tufte, PI
Project Engineer
JET/
X:A3900000.a11\3902330\DOCS\Variance request (Curve radius 9-21-01)#1.doc
Interoffice Memoradum
Date: 10/31/01
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager"
From: Marc Virata, Development Review Engineer
RE: Variance Request for Rolland Moore Drive (Community Horticulture Center)
J.R. Engineering, on behalf of the Community Horticulture Center has submitted two variance
requests to the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" (LCUASS), (this project is not
technically under LCUASS, but can be reviewed under this criteria.) Both the proposed centerline
radius and centerline tangent for Rolland Moore Drive, (a collector street as designated by the
City's Master Street Plan) do not meet LCUASS and variance requests are being sought.
Per LCUASS, the required centerline radius on a collector street is 600 feet; the design is
proposing 551 feet. Also per LCUASS, the required centerline tangent is 150 feet; the design is
proposing 77 feet.
The justification for these variance requests is basically due to the alignment for Rolland Moore
Drive was pre -determined through negotiations between the City of Fort Collins and the Colorado
State University Research Foundation. The alignment, however, was set to take public safety in
mind. This alignment was chosen to take into account creating adequate sight distance at the
intersection of Centre Avenue and also takes into account avoiding existing wetlands.
The engineer also sites the belief that these substandard design geometrics approaching the
intersection of Centre Avenue is not of concern because vehicles will be slowing down
approaching the intersection because of the stop condition at Centre Avenue. In addition,
Rolland Moore Drive will also not be extended as a public street east of Centre Avenue.
Therefore the need to meet geometric design standards approaching the intersection is not of
concern.
In looking at the circumstances surrounding these variance requests, I feel that this can be
supported and will not sacrifice the health safety and welfare of the public. Please see the
attached for additional information.
tL- 3-Ut; t:OgpM;Csur+
4840354
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (970) 482-2916 Fax: (970) 484-0354
RESEARCH FOUNDATION
P.U. BOX 483
cs u rf TORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522
VIA FAX 416-2209
November 30, 2001
Mr. Ron Mills
Real Estate Manager
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, C0 80522
Dear Ron:
CSURF is in receipt of your letter and transmittal of November 16, 2001 pertaining to the
Community Horticulture Center. CSURF is unable to meet your deadline for approval of
December 5, 2001 as the information submitted needs engineering review and then
approval by the CSURF Board of Trustees.
CSURF has retained Stan Myers of Tait & Associates to assist CSURF in the engineering
review. Following that review and any related negotiations, the CSURF Board will be
approached for approval at one of its quarterly meetings.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need anything further at this time.
Scerelv,
ia
Kathleen Henry Byington
President/CEO
KHB:jhb
more naturalistic cross-section, wetlands will be added, and the entire area will be
replanted with appropriate native plants.
h. ENV-7.3: Minimize flood damage.
The site grading will result in the creation of an additional --20 acre feet of
stormwater detention along Spring Creek, a high priority of the city's Stormwater
Utility.
I. ENV-7.5: Flood education.
One element of our programming will be the interpretation of the Spring Creek 1997
flood, and associated education.
j. ENV-7.6: Educational programs on stormwater quality.
The proposed development includes a boardwalk path along Spring Creek and over
the created wetlands, to serve as an outdoor laboratory for environmental education.
k. NOL-1.3: Public opportunities for educational and recreational opportunities related
to natural features.
This project will create numerous opportunities to learn about and enjoy Spring
Creek.
NOL-3: Balancing opportunities for passive and active recreation within city's parks
and natural areas.
This project will provide the opportunity for both active (athletic and play activities in
the neighborhood park, and participatory gardening at the CHC) and passive
(strolling the grounds, relaxing on a bench, listening to a concert, etc.) recreation.
m. GM-4.1: City commitment to providing capital facilities.
As one of the projects in the Building Community Choices capital improvement plan,
the CHC will help meet the needs and desires of our growing community.
n. RD-5.2: Neighborhood parks in residential districts.
This project includes the development of a several acre neighborhood park, within
easy walking and biking distance of the residential areas to the west. It will have an
unprogrammed multi -use turf area, a picnic shelter, benches, and gardens.
o. ED-1: Appropriate development within an Employment District.
The CHC and neighborhood park represent an appropriate addition to this
Employment District, as it will provide recreational/educational/cultural
opportunities, it will have an attractive appearance, and will be designed to encourage
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access.
2
Steve Olt - Re: Easement dedication Page 1
From: Ron Mills
To:"no2aello@psd.k12.co.us"@FC1.GWIA
Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Easement dedication
Nancy: Thank you so much for your board's cooperation with our request for the easement. With this
response, I'm asking Jim and Steve to provide answers to the questions you have raised.
As to the signing, you're correct, it needs to be the Board President and Secretary. I've attached a revised
Easement Dedication form dated 12/05/01 for the Board's execution. Helen and I are both Notary's so
one of us would be glad to come out to notarize signatures if that helps.
Thanks,
Ron
>>> Nancy Ozzello <riozzello@psd.kl2.co.us> 12/05 2:41 AM >>>
Hi Ron,
Please accept this e-mail as our homeowners association to agreement in
principle to the easement dedication. We have had a bumpy ride with
the City in regards to our greenbelts and so the trust factor is
slightly fractured. With that in mind, our board, comprised of myself,
Bob Poncelow, David Miller and Roger Parmenter have discussed the
easement and the following are issues of concern.
1. On the storm drainage plan, a 24" rcp is the "going in" end and it
dumps into a storm retention pond (?) with a 15" rcp. Why is the pipe
different sizes? The page talked about the water quality grass swale.
2. Has this storm drainage plan for the horticult. center changed the
100 year flood plain for our lots? There is a detail that shows an
outline of our lots on the south side of Gilgalad, especially Lot 20
with the 100 year flood outline right on Lot 20's south property line.
We were under the impression all our lots were not in the 100 year
flood plain.
3. The intake screen covering Alt. B - Is there any safety hazard to
anyone on the pond? The question was regarding suction with the amount
of water being pumped (240 gpm). Jim Clark told me irrigating will be
done at night but the safety question has come up.
4. Back to the storm drainage plan. There is a notation near a detail
that talks about property west of your property line may need to be
evaluated to determine compliance for the outfall swale. If our
property on the west side of the sidewalk is not in compliance with the
storm drainage flow patterns, we assume no responsibility as the City
would have signed off on storm drainage when the subdivsion was
developed and we have made no changes to our common elements.
5. What is the City's plan for re-routing trail traffic when you close
the area for construction? Namely, the bridge looks like it may
close. We can't really tell but would really like to avoid trail
users coming east on Gilgalad and going through our common elements
to cut through the horticult. site and connect back to the trail.
The worn path on that portion of our common elements is actually
within that homeowner's lot.
Steve Olt - Re: Easement dedication Page 2
6. We would like to make sure by granting this easement that the
horticultural center irrigates at night with its maximum operating
capacity at 240 gpm and that sufficient time is given for the pond to
refill before morning.
My last question is regarding your voice mail to me on 12-4-01. Do you
know want the four board members to sign the easement dedication? The
page I copied from your e-mail has a space for the president and the
Wallenberg group said the president and secretary signed. Let me know.
Do you then want this mailed to you?
As usual, Jim Clark has bent over backwards in his time and effort to
assure all will be well in our world. He has been very accessible and I
really appreciate all his help. Thanks to you too for letting us give
our input to you.
Nancy Ozzello
Bennett Elementary
nozzello@psd.kl2.co.lis
Poudre School District, Ft. Collins, CO
CC: Jim clark; Steve Seefeld
Steve Olt - Fwd: Re: Easement dedication Page 1
From: Jim Clark
To: Alison Brady, Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, stiped@eda...
Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Easement dedication
Hello all,
I am forwarding some questions that I just received, concerning the community horticulture center. They
are from the Windtrail Neighborhood HOA. There are questions on storm drainage/floodplain (David
Stipe, Wes LamarquE! and Marsha Hilmes-Robinson), the bike trail re-routing during construction (Alison
Brady). You may not have time to give these questions some thought before tonight's Public Hearing, but
it is quite probable that these questions will be asked. It would be best if we are prepared to answer them.
Thanks for your time. See you tonight at 6:30 pm at 281 N. College
Jim C.
CC: Steve Olt
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 6, 2002
FROM: Marty Heffernan, Director of CLRS
TO: Jim Clark, Horticulture Supervisor
Steve Seefeld, Facilities Project Manager
Craig Foreman, Manager of Park Planning and Development
Doug Smith, Budget Director
Steve Engemoen, Sr. Budget & Res. Analyst
Dawria Gorkowski, Financial Analyst
Bob Loeven, Manager of Park
RE: Funding for construction of the south half of Rolland Moore Drive
This is a memorandum of understanding between the Horticulture Division, Park
Planning and Development, and the Parks Division in regards to the payment of
construction costs for the south half of Rolland Moore Drive and the subsequent
repayment of these costs by CSURF.
The Horticulture Center construction project is responsible for construction of the south
half of Rolland Moore Drive. This expense will be reimbursed with interest by CSURF
when the adjacent property is developed in the future. It is estimated that between
$100,000 and $150,000 will be needed to fund this portion of the project. The
Horticulture Center project does not have sufficient funds to pay for the construction of
the road.
Park Planning and Development has agreed to allow the Horticulture Center project the
use of $100,000 the Parks Division was contributing to the purchase of water for Fossil
Creek Community Park and the surrounding parks being developed in the future. This
purchase of water by the Parks Division was an exchange for Park Planning and
Development oversizing the maintenance facility at Fossil Creek Community Park. The
facility was oversized to allow the surrounding parks in that district to be maintained out
of the Fossil Creek facility. If the road costs exceed $100,000, the Horticulture Division
will be required to cover the difference with funding received in 2003 for operation and
maintenance that will be saved due to the delay in opening the facility until mid 2003.
CSURF is required to repay with interest the cost of the road. Based on the amount
repaid, up to $100,000 plus interest (at the rate paid by CSURF) will be returned to the
Parks Division and any remaining balance, if any, will be returned to the Horticulture
Division when 1he adjacent property is developed and the repayment is made. The Parks
Division must use these funds to purchase water needed for the development of parks in
the Fossil Creek. District.
Marc Virata - Rolland Moore Drive Funding Page 1 j
From: Dawna Gorkowski
To: Bob Loeven; Craig Foreman; Doug Smith; Jim Clark; Steve Engemoen; Steve
Seefeld
Date: Tue, Aug 6, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: Rolland Moore Drive Funding
To Everyone,
Attached is a memorandum of understanding outlining the arrangement agreed to by Horticulture, Park
Planning and Parks in regards to funding the improvements to Rolland Moore Drive as part of the
Horticulture Center project. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Dawna
CC: Marty Heffernan
Marc Virata - Fwd: Rolland Moore Drive Funding Page 1
From: Jim Clark
To: Marc; Virata; Matt Baker; Ted Shepard
Date: Fri, Aug 16, 2002 4:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: Rolland Moore Drive Funding
Hello Marc, Matt, and Ted,
I am forwarding to you a memorandum -of -understanding that was prepared by Dawna Gorkowski and
Marty Heffernan, regarding the payment of construction costs for the south half of Rolland Moore Drive, in
conjunction with the horticulture center construction.
The memo's primary purpose is to document how the funding will occur, internal to Parks and Recreation.
However, I am sending a copy to the three of you to make you aware of the fact that, in the
future --whether 2 years or 10 years from now --when CSURF proposes a development for the parcel
contiguous to the south side of Rolland Moore Drive, they will need to repay us for the cost of the
construction, plus interest.
I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out how best to document that for the development review processes
that you are involved in, such that even if none of us are still working for the city (due to winning the lottery
or for other reasons), our successors will still know what to do.
Please confirm that this makes sense and that I've contacted the right people
Thanks,
Jim Clark
CC: Dawna Gorkowski; Marty Heffernan; Steve Seefeld; Tim Buchanan
p. WC-1.1 and 1.2: Functions of water corridors and protection of natural resources.
This development will not only preserve, but it will enhance, the functions of Spring
Creek for drainage (floodwater detention will be increased), recreation, habitat
conservation, and wildlife movement.
q. WC-2.1: Appropriate placement of recreational trails.
This development includes the re-routing of the Spring Creek bike trail along the
creek, in a manner that minimizes habitat impact and maximizes human enjoyment.
r. WC-2.3: Connections between water corridors, open lands, and trails.
The restoration of Spring Creek through our site will serve as a critical component of
the entire Spring Creek corridor, hopefully inspiring further restoration along its
length. The bike trail along the corridor and through our site provides a great
opportunity for people to experience the beauty of this area.
2. Description of proposed open space, buffering, landscaping, circulation, transition
areas, wetlands and natural areas on site and in the general vicinity of the project:
Ecologists assessing the Spring Creek corridor through our site have determined that it
currently has little natural resource value in the way of native vegetation or wildlife. The
water course is lined with one large cottonwood, several non-native crack willows, and
about a dozen invasive Russian olives. The adjacent fields have been leveled right up to
the banks, for the purpose of flood irrigation, and are vegetated primarily with alfalfa,
weeds, and non-native grasses. This corridor does, however, have great potential for
restoration. In order to improve the natural resource value and to create much -needed
floodwater detention, our proposed grading includes extensive pulling back of the top
several feet of the existing banks (leaving the existing channel and bottom 2 feet of
embankment as is) to create a more naturalistic two-year floodplain with meandering high
water channels and wetland areas within it.
The existing trees within the corridor will be preserved, other than the Russian olives and
the smaller crack willow (Salix fragilis). The corridor will be replanted extensively with
appropriate wetland, riparian, and upland native plants, including trees, shrubs, fortis,
sedges, rushes, and grasses. This area of native plantings will be for the entire 100 feet
width of the CHC property on the north side of the creek. On the south side, the native
plantings will vary between 60 feet (for a portion of the neighborhood park area) and 200
feet (in the area of the Habitat Garden), with an average of over 100 feet. These
plantings will consist of native trees, shrubs, forbs, and unmowed grasses. A portion of
the south side of the corridor will be accessible by an informal path and boardwalks for
the purpose of environmental education. Interpretive signage in this area will be kept to a
minimum. The! restoration work will be done with the assistance of riparian naturalists
and restoration hydrologists. This area will be maintained with a naturalistic approach,
with an example being that the grasses will not be mowed. The bike trail will be located
3
on the south side of Spring Creek with a meandering route that varies between 60 and 130
feet from the creek.
Section 3.4.1D of the Land Use Code deals with natural feature buffer zones, and
subsection (2) states that "no disturbance shall occur within any buffer zone .... except as
provided in subsection (c)." Subsection (c) states that "the decision maker may allow
disturbance or construction activity within the buffer zone for the following limited
purposes:", and goes on to list six situations. We feel that our proposed development
meets the second and fourth situations due to the environmental improvements to this
previously disturbed area and due to the creation of stormwater detention as a "utility
installation". The second and fourth exceptions read as follows: "2. restoration of
previously disturbed or degraded areas or planned enhancement projects to benefit the
natural area or feature" and "4. utility installations when such activities and installations
cannot reasonably be located outside the buffer zone or other nearby areas of
development".
We have met with the Natural Resources staff on several occasions over the past 6
months, and have received their tentative approval of this concept. The Natural
Resources staff has also tentatively determined that it will provide financial assistance to
this project, to be used for the restoration of the Spring Creek corridor. We have also
given presentations to the natural areas committee of the Natural Resources Advisory
Board and the full Natural Resources Advisory Board. The committee and the full board
were supportive of the project as a whole, and with our proposed development along
Spring Creek, with the proviso that several specific concerns be addressed. The proposed
development indicated in this Project Development Plan submittal does address those
concerns.
3. Statement of proposed ownership and maintenance of public and private open space
areas:
The Community Horticulture Center and the neighborhood park will be owned and
maintained by the City of Fort Collins. No future change is foreseen in the ownership
and maintenance.
4. Estimate of number of employees:
The Community Horticulture Center will initially be staffed with four full-time, several
part-time employees, and possibly an intern. We will also rely heavily on the assistance
of volunteers for the operation and maintenance of the facility and grounds. At any point
in time, this could vary between no volunteers and 10 or 15 volunteers.
As additional gardens are built and more maintenance is required, the number of paid staff
will increase. When the project is completed, we estimate that there would be ten full-
time and part-time staff during the growing season.
4
5. Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant:
The only design -related decision that might not be self-evident, and that varies from what
might be expected by City staff or directed by City Plan, has to do with the location of
our parking lot The parking lot was originally proposed to be in the southwestern comer
of our site due to our believing that, with the information we had at that time, that
location was the most cost-effective, the most practical in terms of site layout and flow,
the safest for traffic, the least impact to flood detention volumes, and the most consistent
with City Plan objectives. However, as described in #8 below, the Windtrail
neighborhood to the west of our site was strongly opposed to that location, for several
reasons.
As a result of that vocal resistance, we re -assessed our options for the parking lot location,
including a further contact with Eric Bracke, City traffic engineer. Because of the
circumstances, he stated that he would allow our parking lot access to be directly across
from the Natural Resources Research Center's north entrance, rather than the previously
stipulated 315 feet north of that entrance. This allowed us to avoid a very large amount of
filling within the floodway, thereby eliminating a major disadvantage (and possible "fatal
flaw") of the previous design for this parking lot location. Allowing the parking lot
access at this point also eliminated other drawbacks previously identified with locating the
parking lot along Centre Avenue, and even created some additional benefits, most notably
allowing us to have a staff parking lot and service access on the "back side" of our
building. This was a feature that was not possible with the parking lot as previously
considered.
In re -assessing the pros and cons of the two options and in wanting to meet the
neighborhood's request, we determined that the location alongside Centre Avenue was
best. Therefore, that is what we are now proposing, as seen in our attached plans. This
is in a more visible location than what might be preferred by City Plan. However, this
best meets the concerns of the neighborhood, and has received their strong support (see
attached). It also, we feel, results in a better overall project for the community. The
view of the parking lot from Centre Avenue will be mitigated as much as possible with
screening from trees and shrubs.
6. Evidence of successful completion of the applicable criteria:
Not applicable
7. Narrative description of how conflicts between land uses or disturbances to wetlands
or natural areas are being avoided or mitigated:
The net effect of our project will be a greater amount and improved quality of wildlife
habitat on our site, as compared with its current condition. However, before it can be
improved with a vast amount of replanting, we will have to do a considerable amount of
earthwork that will be intially disruptive. With all of this earthwork, we will need to
provide appropriate measures to protect Spring Creek, certain trees, and any existing
b'
animal shelters/habitat that are deemed important, such as fox dens. Protective measures
will include: construction documents that clearly and explicitly state areas requiring
special care (with stiff penalties for violation); orange plastic fencing to protect trees to be
saved and any important animal habitat areas; silt fencing along the border of Spring
Creek; and close construction observation/supervision.
8. Narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood meetings:
During the course of our extensive public outreach, strong support was expressed for the
project as a whole and for having it located on the intended site. There was not a single
opinion expressed against the project itself or our location. During the five neighborhood
meetings and about a dozen phone conversations and E-mails, however, about 26 people
expressed some concern (ranging from mild to strong) about a particular aspect(s) of our
proposed development. The following narrative relates the nature of those concerns and
how we have addressed them.
One minor concern expressed by one individual had to do with the proposed location of
our compost bins. He was concerned that the compost would result in offensive odors
that could be smelled from his residence. This concern was addressed by moving the
compost bin location about 100 feet further away (so that it is now at least 300 feet from
his property), in addition to assuring him that a well -tended compost bin produces very
little odor, certainly nothing that could be detected from that distance. We also
encouraged him. to contact us in the future if he was able to smell it, and convinced him
that we would then take further corrective actions.
Beyond that minor concern, all other concerns that were expressed boiled down to two
issues, one regarding the initially -proposed location of the parking lot and the second
regarding our serving as a venue for concerts or wedding receptions. Between these two
issues the most concern, both in terms of number of people and strength of opposition,
was regarding the parking lot. The parking lot was originally proposed to be in the
southwest corner of our site due to our believing that location was the most cost-effective,
the most practical in terms of site layout and flow, the safest for traffic, the least
impactful to flood detention volumes, and the most consistent with City Plan objectives.
The specific concern(s) about the parking lot varied between people, but in all cases it was
some combination of: excessive noise, visual unsightliness, annoying lighting, harmful traffic
exhaust, and safety risk for the neighborhood children. They all expressed that the parking lot
should be located along Centre Avenue, rather than along our southwest corner. We felt that
many of their concerns were based at least somewhat on inaccurate assumptions (for example,
we are not proposing that the parking lot lights be on after 10:00 p.m.) and that we could
mitigate some of the issues (such as with a sound wall and trees for visual and sound buffer), but
our justifications and proposed mitigations were not adequate to satisfy their concerns. We
therefore re -assessed our options, the result of which is now proposing that the parking lot
be located along Centre Avenue, as requested by the neighbors. They are happy with this
decision (see attached letter), and we and the neighbors consider that issue resolved.
C1
The second issue of concern, as expressed by about 12 people, has to do with our
proposed use of our site as a venue for small concerts, wedding receptions, special events,
etc. In order to provide a highly -demanded service to the community, and to provide
some earned revenue for our facility, we would like to be able to rent out our meeting
room, the adjoining patio area, and the Great Lawn (see our Landscape Plan) for these
type of events. Associated with these events, there would be live music or amplified
recorded music, and possibly the serving of alcohol. These people's specific concerns
related to these events were/are: (1) noise, (2) spillover parking in their neighborhood,
and (3) drunken behavior from alcohol served at the events.
The first order of addressing these concerns has been with clarification. Many of the
people expressing concern have had an inaccurate perception that we are proposing very
loud concerts with a thousand or more people, similar to the CSU Lagoon Concert Series.
In fact, we are envisioning much more subdued music and much smaller audiences,
comparable to the Lincoln Center's summer "Nooner" series with minimally amplified
music and about 300 people attending.
Controlling the number of people attending is a key issue, as that relates to both the noise
level and the risk of people not finding convenient parking and resorting to looking for it
in the adjoining neighborhood. We can control the number of attendees in several ways,
including through strict limitations in our contracts with the groups that rent our facility,
through limiting; the number of tickets sold, and through the fact that our site will be
secured with fencing and a single entrance. We will make sure ahead of time that there is
adequate parking for the maximum number attending, through a combination of our
parking lot, the Natural Resources Research Center parking lot across the street (we are in
the process of obtaining a signed Memorandum of Understanding), and/or possibly the
vacant field to the south of Rolland Moore Drive, owned by CSURF. Any remaining risk
of people trying to park in the adjacent neighborhood should be eliminated by the fact that
our parking lot location and entrance is now along Centre Avenue (rather than the
previously -proposed parking location and entrance that were closer to the neighborhood),
in addition to signage and parking enforcement, if needed.
We have recognized all along that the noise level of any event, whether from people or
music, is a critical one. We also understand that the nearest homes are relatively close to
the Great Lawn, and that sound travels more readily in this creek basin, for geographic
and climatological reasons. To begin with, we re -oriented the gazebo/bandstand so that
sound would be projected away from the residential neighborhoods to the west and
northwest. Since June we have been performing tests and gathering information on this
issue. We have, sought the input of Rich Kopp, who enforces the city's noise ordinance,
on several occasions. We also hired Balloffet and Associates to perform a very detailed
scientific analysis of the existing noise levels at the site. Their opinion is that, with
reasonable precautions, it will be possible to have amplified music and other activities on
7
the Great Lawn, that meets both the desires of attendees and the city's noise ordinance
levels.
The time of day and frequency of these events is also a key issue. We have informed the
neighbors that we do not intend to have any event last past 10:00 p.m., and in most cases
they would not go past dusk. Events would most likely be limited to Friday and
Saturdays during the summer.
The serving of .alcohol is quite common for social events at botanic gardens. Alcoholic
drinks are also permissible for adults attending events at the Senior Center and the Lincoln
Center. Both facilities consider the option of serving alcohol to be essential for the rental
market that they serve, and they report negligible problems associated with it. We do not
want to short change our revenue -earning potential by limiting ourselves at the outset.
We also feel that we can adequately establish, control and enforce limitations on the
consumption of alcohol during events at our facility. Furthermore, if problems develop,
they can be resolved, as we do not need to view any particular policy as "written in
stone". That is particularly true for a public facility that is held to a higher standard and
subject to citizen oversight and review.
Thus far, we have not been able to alleviate all of the concerns of the neighbors related to
the holding of small concerts and other events. Our intent for the further resolution of
these issues --the noise levels, time of day, frequency, number of people attending, and the
serving of alcohol --is to continue researching and discussing them with the neighborhood.
When we are further along in our planning, for example, we would be happy to conduct
sound demonstrations for the neighbors so they will know what, exactly, we are proposing
in terms of noise level. We feel that we do not have to have these programming issues
firmly resolved in order to obtain approval of this project, given that none of these issues
impact our physical design. Even if we thought that we would never hold a concert on
the grounds, we would still intend to have the Great Lawn and gazebo/bandshell, for the
benefit of other social events without amplified music. Furthermore, the construction of
the Great Lawn and gazebo/bandshell is not anticipated to be part of phase one, and will
likely be several years into the future, pending private fundraising. We feel that there is
ample time to discuss these issues further, and a process set up for doing so, in parallel to
the construction of the project so that it is not held up.
9. Current and past names of the project, as submitted for conceptual review:
This project has solely been referred to as the Community Horticulture Center, throughout
its 14 year history of being envisioned and planned.
Marc Virata - Re: City Horticulture Center
Page 1
From: Gregory Byrne
To: Cameron Gloss; Dave Stringer
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: City Horticulture Center
I think the work should proceed under the following assumptions: (1) the engineering staff are
recommending approval of the design of the ditch relocation; and (2) we document the file with a memo in
case someone questions the activity.
Thanks for asking.
CC: Cam McNair; Jim Clark; Marc Virata