HomeMy WebLinkAboutINVERNESS INNOVATION PARK - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2011-06-21•CC Urban RL�,-,
CC❑ Development
C❑■Partners, LLC
A Northern Colorado Development Company
November 3, 2009
Marc Virata
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Marc,
UDP will allow grading and construction activities to occur on the Inverness Innovation Park
(iip) property, which UDP owns for the purpose of construction, grading, and other
improvements anticipated in the overall development of Up. The specific parcels that are
affected are Parcel Nos. 9701308001 (east of the site) and 9712200045 (south of the site)
Let me know if you need anything further to meet your needs in this regard.
A
Micha
U
1220 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
0
1220 S. College Avenue • Suite 100 • Fort Collins, CO 80524
[8/19/09] Show building footprint dimensions on site plan for all buildings, including the bike
parking pavilion.
Number: 3 Created: 8/19/2009
[9/16/09] Ok once I see the note on the final plan.
[8/19/091 The long-term parking spaces will need to be identified with a raised "employee
parking only" sign.
Number: 5 Created: 8/19/2009
[9/16/091 Will need to request alternative compliance per Sec. 3.2.1(N).
The parking lot landscape island in question is 15'-8"X 50'-0'; this parking lot island includes
areas that are striped and are part of the paving system. These paving areas are per request of
the Poudre Fire Authority to aid in site access. The landscape island includes (2) shade trees
which we believe meets the intentions of the /anduse code, to provide shading to the parking
areas provided. These proposed shade trees are in place of (4) previously proposed ornamental
trees, with the believe that the (2) shade trees will better meet the intentionlrequirements.
[8/19/09] Each parking lot landscape island is required to have a tree and have a dimension of
at least 8' in its smallest dimension per Section 3.2.1(E)(5)C. Some islands don't contain trees
and are smaller than 8'.
Number: 6 Created: 8/19/2009
[9/16/09] 1 didn't receive elevation drawings with this round of review, so I'm assuming signage
has been removed from the drawings, in addition to just acknowledging that signage is under
separate permit.
[8/19/09] Signage isn't approved by this PDP, and should be removed from drawings. FYI, the
RM12 signage shown on top of the canopy on the front of Bldg 1 doesn't comply with the sign
code. Signs aren't allowed on top of canopy.
Number: 7 Created: 8/19/2009
[9/16/09] The response letter states that the applicant acknowledged this comment, but I don't
see that the comment was addressed on the plan. Looks the same as the 1 st round of review.
[8/19/09] The solar collector car park structure needs to be clearly shown/labeled on the site
plan, with building dimensions shown.
Comment from Historic Preservation: Be sure to indicate colors on the architectural elevations.
There is a concern about the shade of the yellow.
We would be happy to address your concerns, how do we best address your concern regarding
the yellow color?
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit for Final.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
Sincerely:
Page 9
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Page 10
171 North College Ave ■ Fort Collins, CO 805259 ■ 970.797.2906 ■ fax 970.407.9244
September 9, 2009
Mr. Marc Virata, P.E.
City of Fort Collins, Engineering Department
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: RM12 at Inverness Innovation Park — Proposed Mitigation
Dear Mr. Virata,
The purpose of this letter to propose mitigation for the posted speed limit along Vine Drive,
based on the proposed geometry and roadway alignment contained in the RM12 at Inverness
Innovation Park utility plans.
Vine Drive is classified as a minor arterial per the City's Master Plan. Per section 7.4.1 of the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), the design and posted speeds for
such classification are 50 mph and 30-45 mph, respectively. Apex has provided formal
variance requests for the proposed geometry of Vine Drive, due to existing topographical
restraints and also in part to information supplied in the traffic study, completed by ELB
Engineering, which states traffic volumes will be reduced in this area due to the nature of
proposed transportation modes and uses for the project.
Per the City of Fort Collins request, Apex has analyzed the proposed geometry for Vine
Drive in relation to the design/posted speeds, per LCUASS, and the traffic impact study for
the project, while also taking into account the access drive locations and intersections
adjacent to and along Vine Drive, in the vicinity of the RM12 site.
The proposed centerline radius for Vine Drive, due to existing topographical constraints, is
830', versus the required 1075'. In reviewing section 7.4.1 of LCUASS, a centerline curve
radius of 600' correlates to a major collector road classification. The traffic study indicates
that Vine Drive's traffic volumes will be low for a minor arterial classification. The proposed
830' centerline radius would indicate that the roadway could function at the high end of a
major collector classification, or at the mid to low end of a minor arterial classification. In
either classification, the posted speed limits vary from 30-45 mph, with the major collector
posted speeds being 30-35, and the minor arterial being 30-45 mph.
It is important to note that the traffic study recommends downgrading the section of Vine
Drive, adjacent to the RM12 site, to collector classification and this possible re-classification
is also being reviewed in the Mountain Vista area street plan. However, the classification
today remains as a minor arterial, with low volumes of traffic anticipated in relation to the
classification.
Therefore, based on the existing physical topographic constraints, which limit the layout and
geometry of Vine Drive to the proposed alignment shown in the RM12 plans, and also
section 7.4.1 of LCUASS, which correlates the proposed geometry and horizontal alignment
for the roadway in relation to the posted speed limit, Apex proposes a 35 mph posted speed
limit for the section of Vine Drive, adjacent to the RM12 site.
Sincerely,
Bob Gowing, P.E.
171 North College Ave ■ Fort Collins, CO 805259 ■ 970.797.2906 a fax 970.407.9244
September 9, 2009
Mr. Marc Virata, P.E.
City of Fort Collins, Engineering Department
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: RM12 at Inverness Innovation Park - Variance Requests
Dear Mr. Virata,
The purpose of this letter to request engineering variances for several engineering design
standards, in accordance with section 1.9.4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS). We appreciate the discussions with you and other City staff
concerning this project. Your feedback has been very valuable in the creation of a viable site
plan which also meets the intent of the standards. In general, the variances are related to
horizontal geometry along the proposed improvements for East Vine Drive:
Horizontal Geometry - Minimum Tangent, Minimum Radius and Access Spacing
LCUASS Chapter 7, Table 7-3 Technical Design Criteria
The minimum required tangent length between horizontal curves is 200'. The proposed
tangent length between curves (station 18+36.22 to 19+69.79) is 133.57'.
The minimum required centerline radius is 1075'. The proposed radii for two curves
along East Vine are 830'.
Proposed access spacing is approximately 335' from Redwood drive, where 460' is
required. Additionally, private driveway accesses are proposed with a spacing of 310',
where 460' is required. Generally, all these design items are required due to constraints
created by the existing topography along East Vine Drive. More specifically:
■ The proposed curves match closely with the existing curves in this area. ROW
constraints on adjacent properties do no allow for extensive realignment of the
existing street.
■ Transitions to existing pavement at either ends of the improvements require a
close match to existing horizontal and vertical geometry.
• Traffic volumes along East Vine are low for a minor arterial.
• With the anticipated relocation of Vine Drive to the north, this road will see
significantly less traffic than what occurs today, even with the proposed uses for
this development.
■ With the anticipated relocation of Vine Drive, Jerome and Redwood Drives will
be logical N/S routes for the anticipated development in Old Town North to the
north. This will further reduce traffic in this portion of Vine Drive.
Minimum Off Street Parking Setback
LCUASS Chapter 19, Figure 19-6, Minimum Off Street Parking Setback Distance
The minimum required setback for private off street parking off an arterial is 75'. The
proposed distance is 50'. This requirement is unnecessarily restrictive for this site plan
for several reasons:
■ The parking plan for this project has competing objectives and needs. On one
hand, it will emphasize alternative modes of transportation by utilizing loaner
cars, and biking and walking to work, in lieu of driving personal vehicles, to meet
the energy efficiency goals of the project. On the other hand, it is potentially
under parked from a quantity of parking spaces perspective depending on the
success and acceptance of the alternative modes of transportation anticipated,
especially when the second building is brought on line. Therefore, each parking
space is important to maintain, and elimination of one or two stalls to meet this
requirement could prevent the site plan from meeting the project's overall
parking needs.
■ The proposed traffic volumes for the site are relatively low, as documented in the
traffic analysis prepared by ELB Engineering.
• The proposed plan allows for enough room for two stacked vehicles. With one
vehicle backing out of the parking space, there is room for one vehicle to stack
and still be totally outside the adjacent street.
■ The proposed requirement impacts the number of parking spaces available for
the project site. A reduced number of spaces would likely result in more parking
movements and queuing as frustrated drivers jockey for limited parking spaces.
■ The proposed plan includes two access driveways off East Vine, both of which are
full movement. This will distribute the trips between two access points.
• The proposed development will highlight and emphasis alternative transportation
modes. In addition, the future occupants are highly "green" motivated. The
vehicles most likely being used to access this facility will be compact and hybrid
vehicles. The size of these vehicles requires less space to maneuver thereby
needing less stacking space and a smaller setback than typically required.
It should also be noted that there has been some discussion of downgrading this section of
East Vine to a collector. Although this change is not currently proposed, it is being
considered in the Mountain Vista area plan, and is recommended by the project traffic
engineer. All the above instances meet collector standards, with the sole exception of the
tangent length.
Based on the limitations of the existing site, the constraints along East Vine Drive, the
mitigating factors, and the traffic analysis, we believe these variances are reasonable and
appropriate in this case. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Bob Gowing, P.E.
"An � Y STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
t.'i3 t e5F € tta t: C'c�l l ei
Michael Bello Date: 8/31/2009
Urban Development Partners, LLC
1220 S. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for RM12 AT INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK PDP -
TYPE I, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: General
Number: 36 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] This project will be evaluated by the Performance Standards of Section
3.4.1(E)(1) (a) through (i) of the Land Use Code. Review these standards to ensure that
that your plans, including the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Lighting Plan and Grading Plan
meet the purpose of the standards. Include clear and concise narrative explaining how
these standards are being met in the next submittal.
See attached
Number: 39 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] The trash and recycling structure shall comply with Section 3.2.5 of the Land Use
Code. Provide information compliance with this section of the code.
acknowledged
Number: 51 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Per the discussion at the meeting on August 19, 2009, the Site Plan and
associated buffer along the Lake Canal shall be determined following an evaluation of the
ramifications of elevating the building an additional 2 feet to comply with the floodplain
review of the project. In addition, Building 2 can be no closer to the canal than building 1; a
full plan and elevations of the deck along the north side of the building and a justification for
it's existence is required prior to establishing the final location of the buffer zone line. All
other items discussed in that meeting shall be enumerated in the next submittal and how
they have been addressed. Some of these items have been commented on as part of this
review.
As discussed we have been able to achieve the following:
1) Move the building 2 feet further south. Future Building 2 is aligned with this building.
2) Deck size has been reduced to 8 feet in width. These two items provides a 22 foot buffer
min. at the buildings, 33 feet at building two.
3) We have redesigned the western parking lot increasing the buffer width from 12 feet to 22
feet.
4) The building(s) were only raised an additional foot, allowing for the increased setback.
Number: 87 Created: 8/27/2009
[8/27/09] The following items were discussed during the meeting on Augustl9th, and will be
addressed in the next submittal:
1. Provide deck plan, elevations and details;
acknowledged
2. Redesign east parking lot to pull north edge further away from the top of the Lake Canal
embankment;
Page 1
We have redesigned the western parking lot increasing the buffer width from 12 feet to
22 feet.
3. Pull both buildings as far south of the top of embankment as possible;
Move the building 2 feet further south. Future Building 2 is aligned with this building.
4. An open rail fence with wire mesh will be used to delineate the edge of the buffer zone
along the Lake Canal;
There will be no pedestrian access into the lake Canal buffer zone.
A two rail, open rail fence will be installed adjacent to the lake Canal as shown on the
plans.
Number: 88 Created: 8/27/2009
[8/27/09] A licensed tree service company is required to prune up and remove any tree
trucks per the field inspection of August 19, 2009. Contact tim Buchanan (970-221-6361 to
ensure that proposed pruning and trunk removal is approved by the City.
A note to this effect has been added to the landscape plans.
Number: 89 Created: 8/27/2009
[8/27/09] As the development plan extends eastward into the adjacent lot, the canal buffer
zone will also be cleaned up following the same standards set forth for the lot under review.
Noted. This will be reviewed at the appropriate time.
Number: 90 Created: 8/27/2009
[8/27/09] All nuisance species, including Russian Olive and siberian Elm will be removed
from the buffer zone. A note shall be added to the Landscape Plan and the Demolition Plan
desribing this requirement.
This note has been added.
Topic: Grading plan
Number: 47 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Grading Plan shall be reviewed by Tim Buchanan as disturbance is shown within
the root zone of the trees within the buffer zone. Typically, there is no disturbance in this
area. Describe the depth of cut or fill in this area.
Response: This grading has been revised to allow for more room to the root zones.
Please see revised Grading Plan.
Number: 49 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Delineate the Coy Ditch embankments on the plan.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 50 Created: 8/25/2009
(8/25/09] Add the tree line along the entire length of the canal.
Response: Acknowledged.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 23 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Label the Lake Canal and Coy Ditch buffer zone per the previous comment on the
Site Plan.
Complete
Number: 24 Created: 8/25/2009
Page 2
[8/25/09] Add the buffer zones line to the plan per the Site Plan and label per previous
comment on the Site Plan.
Complete
Number: 25 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Show all trees above 6" in diameter, including multiple stem trees, to be saved
within the buffer zone on the plan.
Complete
Number: 26 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Accurately depict the tree line on the plan.
Complete
Number: 27 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Add note for any tree to be pruned with how much of the tree to be removed.
Complete
Number: 28 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Depict the top of the Lake Canal and Coy Ditch embankment per the Site Plan
comment.
Complete
Number: 29 Created: 8/25/2009
(8/25/09] Add a LOD line per the Site Plan comment for the Lake Canal and the Coy Ditch.
Complete
Number: 30 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Landscape Plan shall include the detention pond and lot across Vine Drive.
Planting density within and adjacent to the Coy Ditch buffer will be increased to the same
standards as the buffer along the Lake Canal per comment #33.
Complete
Number: 31 Created: 8/25/2009
(8/25/09] Add text per the redlines to note #5 of the Tree Protection Notes.
Complete
Number: 32 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Add text per the redlines to note #10 of the Planting Notes.
Complete
Number: 33 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Within the buffer zones, plant material size can be reduced in size to 1 gallon
containers. Plant material shakll be increased in quantity to meet the Performance
Standards of Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code.
Complete, see Landscape Plan
Number: 34 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Per Land Use Code revisions dated 17 July 2009, show accurately and clearly all
applicable hydrozones on the plan. Include a Water Budget Table per the landscape Plan
submittal list. See the attached document for specific requirements.
Complete
Number: 35 Created: 8/25/2009
(8/25/09] Quadruple the seeding rates for all seed applications within the buffer zones.
Describe application methods in the chart.
Complete
Number: 37 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Provide a separate table for plant material with the buffer zones.
Complete
Number: 38 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Show landscape material surrounding the trash enclosure.
Complete
Page 3
Topic: Photometric Site Plan
Number: 40 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] There shall be no light spillage into the buffer zone. Adjust light fixtures to
address the performance standards of Section 3.4.1(E)(1).
acknowledged
Number: 41 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09]
Add location of buffer line to the plan per the Site Plan. Label buffer zone and line per Site
Plan comments.
acknowledged
Number: 42 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Fixture AA shall include a full house side shield. In this case Accessory MA1213-
XX.
acknowledged
Topic: Planning Principles
Number: 9 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] In the Statement of Planning Objectives, address Principle Env-6,Policy OL-1.2
and Principle WC-las the framework for addressing the impacts upon the Lake Canal and
Coy Ditch buffers.
Principle ENV-6: Natural habitat/ecosystems (wildlife, wetlands, and riparian areas) will be
protected and enhanced within the developed landscape of Fort Collins
Policy ENV-6.1 Protection and Enhancement
This Innovation Inverness First Filing Site is a site that has been previously used for
decades for light industrial use. As such, the existing developed portion of the site
has left little room for natural areas and wildlife movement along the Lake Canal.
The existing buffer ranges in width from 36 ft to 6 ft with the average width being 12
ft. Working with staff, the proposed development increases this buffer an additional
12 feet across most of the site, and 15 ft. along the eastern parking lot. In addition,
this development is removing noxious trees within the existing buffer and planting
additional trees and buffers to enhance the buffer.
Policy OL-1.2 Urban Development
As an infill development, Innovation Inverness First Filing integrates natural areas
into the development. This project not only preserves the existing natural area
habitat along the Lake Canal and Coy Ditch, the habitat is enhanced through
increasing the width of the buffer, new plantings, and the design of the site itself. The
site has been designed to place the buildings adjacent to the buffer, limiting the
parking and vehicular use areas next to the natural area buffer. This provides for a
more passive and less intrusive edge to the natural area. Historically, the site was
used for light industrial uses with heavy truck and vehicle use up to the edge of the
natural area buffer, with no mitigation effects.
Page 4
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Citv of Fort Collins
Michael Bello Date: 9/29/2009
Urban Development Partners, LLC
1220 S. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for RM12 AT INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK PDP - TYPE
I, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: General
Number: 90 Created: 8/27/2009
[9/24/09] Re: Demolition Plan.
[8/27/09] All nuisance species, including Russian Olive and Siberian Elm will be removed from
the buffer zone. A note shall be added to the Landscape Plan and the Demolition Plan
describing this requirement.
Demo Plan has been added showing removal of the above mentioned trees.
Number: 109 Created: 9/24/2009
[9/24/09] All plan drawings shall show the location of the LOD line based upon final landscape
plan location.
Noted, this has been included on the plan sets.
Number: 111 Created: 9/24/2009
[9/24/09] In regards to the Encroachment Agreement with the Ditch Company, provide
language in paragraph three of section5 that will allow owner to plant woody shrubs within canal
right-of-way and allow Ditch Company right to remove for maintenance purposes and allows the
owner to replace said plants at owners expense. I understand this issue may not be able to be
added to the agreement. I am willing to meet with the Ditch Company in support of this request.
Mike Bello has been working on this.
Number: 117 Created: 9/25/2009
[9/25/09] Ensure that the buffer zone line for both the lake Canal and Coy Ditch are shown
correctly on all plan drawings, clearly delineated and labeled correctly.
Complete
Topic: Photometric Site Plan
Number: 42 Created: 8/25/2009
[9/24/09]
[8/25/09] Fixture AA shall include a full house side shield. In this case Accessory MA1213-XX.
-addressed
Page 1
PRINCIPLE WC-l: Water Corridors are natural and man-made waterways and open space --
serving the needs for drainage and water conveyance, as well as recreational, educational and
environmental uses.
Policy WC-1.2 Natural Environment and Wildlife. The City will preserve, protect, enhance,
and restore important natural areas, wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and wildlife corridors
within Water Corridors. (See sections ENV and OL for additional policies.)
This site is adjacent to two water corridors, the Lake Canal and the Coy Ditch. The
bulk of Inverness Innovation First Filing is adjacent to the Lake Canal, with a corner
of the detention pond touching the Coy Ditch. The site plan preserves both of these
water bodies and the existing natural area around both. Since this is a previously
developed site, used for light industrial purposes, neither water body natural area is
pristine, nor do they meet current standards. The site preserves both natural areas,
and enhances these natural areas through increased buffers, removing noxious
trees, and installation of new trees and shrub plant material to provide additional
wildlife habitat.
Policy WC-1.3 Buffering. The City will continue to maintain and develop standards for
adequate buffers to maintain channel stability, water conveyance, flood protection, and
wildlife habitat values.
This Innovation Inverness First Filing Site is a site that has been previously used for
decades for light industrial use. As such, the existing developed portion of the site
has left little room for natural areas and wildlife movement along the Lake Canal.
The existing buffer ranges in width from 36 ft to 6 ft with the average width being 12
ft. Working with staff, the proposed development increases this buffer an additional
12 feet across most of the site, and 15 ft. along the eastern parking lot. In addition,
this development is removing noxious trees within the existing buffer and planting
additional trees and buffers to enhance the buffer.
Topic: Plat
Number: 10 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Delineate the the buffer lines along the lake Canal and Coy Ditch. Label lines
"Natural Features Buffer Zone Line."
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 11 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Label buffer areas as "Natural Feature Buffer Zone."
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 12 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Add the following note to the Plat:
Refer to Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within a buffer zone.
Response: Acknowledged.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 13 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Remove topo lines from plan, not necessary. Do not show any of the demolished
or removed items for the plan. The Site Plan should only show the proposed conditions and
any existing conditions to remain as part of the development plan.
Page 5
acknowledged
Number: 14 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Remove centerline of ditch from plan.
acknowledged Number: 15 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Enhance the Top of Ditch line. Label as "Top of Ditch Embankment."
Number: 16 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Remove 50' buffer label and line from plan.
acknowledged
Number: 17 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] A Limit of Development (LOD) line shall be defined and added to the Site Plan
following the final layout of the project.
acknowledged
Number: 18 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Add the buffer zone line for the Lake Canal to the plan, per the final layout. Label
the line as " Natural Feature Buffer zone Line."
acknowledged
Number: 19 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Label the buffer area of the Lake Canal as "Natural Feature Buffer."
acknowledged
Number: 20 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Add the following note to the plan: Refer to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code
for allowable uses within a buffer zone.
acknowledged
Number: 21 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] The Site Plan shall show lot with the detention pond facilities and the
improvements to the spillway for the Poudre River. This is required so that the LOD line is
shown for the complete development plan.
acknowledged
Number: 22 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Show the buffer line for the Coy ditch and label buffer zone and line per previous
comments for the Lake Canal.
acknowledged
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 43 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Add Environmental Planner signature line to the General Notes,Utility Plan,
Grading Plan (sheets 4 and 5) and the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 45 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Add a demolition plan to the set so that all of the items to be removed, demolished
or deconstructed can be clearly seen.
Response: As discussed, this will be provided at final
Number: 46 Created: 8/25/2009
(8/25/09] On the Utility Plan, Grading Plans and the Drainage and Erosion Control plan add
the natural feature buffer label, the buffer zone line and the LOD line per the Site Plan
comments.
Response: Acknowledged.
Topic: Utility Plans General Notes
Number: 44 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Add the following note: Refer to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable
uses within a buffer zone.
Page 6
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 74 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] Sheet 6 of the construction drawings sketches out what I measure as a required
sight distance easement based upon LCUASS 7-16 and the driveway location. Most of this
occurs on the future lot to the east, however a sight distance easement would need to be
dedicated at this time with the creation of the driveway access on the current lot.
Response: The sight distance easement is now shown on the Street Plan and the Plat.
The easement will be provided by separate instrument.
Number: 78 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The results of the Transportation Coordination meeting last Thursday will need to
be followed -up on in terms of: 1) seeing how a design for a right turn lane can be
accommodated from eastbound Vine to Linden (and how this perhaps affect the overall
design) and 2) having information provided on the reduced centerline radii and how it
impacts the speed along Vine Drive. This should be a pre -hearing item needing to be
addressed.
Response: Acknowledged. A right turn lane has been added.
Number: 81 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] Please ensure that the drive approaches onto Vine are constructed fully in
concrete to the property line in accordance to our driveway detail. The plans seem to show
them more like street intersections. Note that the driveway detail provided in the details
section is not the radius style driveway as proposed on the plans.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 84 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The rationale behind the reduction in the parking stall depth requirement variance
is a little awkward from my perspective. Meeting the standard would require the elimination
of one or more parking spaces, while at the same time the rationale in approving the shorter
setback (and adding parking spaces) is that the development of alternative modes will be
emphasized and occupants are highly green motivated. There's a contradiction I see and
would like to have the presentation revised as a result.
Response: Please see revised variance request letter
Number: 85 Created: 8/26/2009
(8/26/09] Key concerns prior to hearing involve:
- obtaining of all necessary letters of intent from offsite property owners
- receiving revised information on how a design of Vine Drive that achieves a right turn lane
at Linden operates and affects the development as a whole
- receiving information on how the reduced geometric design affects operational speed
- provide clearer interim design information, with more suitable transitions
- addressing inadequate cover over storm lines within Vine
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 93 Created: 8/28/2009
[8/28/09] In checking with Sheri Langenberger, the TDR fee provided appears to fall short
of the amount needed. The site plan specifies a building square footage size that is higher
than the size lindicated in the TDR fee that was calculated and then posted.
Topic: Plat
Number: 71 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The plat shows areas outside of the platted property being legally described (such
as the drainage easement for the pond on the south side of Vine and the portion of the
access, utility and drainage easement to the east of Lot 1). I've verified with the City
Page 7
Surveyor that the plat cannot be the document that establishes these areas because they're
outside of the platted boundary. Either these areas need to be conveyed by separate
document to the City, or the platted boundary needs to be expanded to include these areas.
One consideration in this regard between the two options, may be the cost differential
between the increased TDR fee of an expanded plat boundary against the TDR fee to
dedicate by separate document.
Response: The various off -site easements will be provided by separate instrument and
referenced on the plat at final.
Number: 83 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The lack of a continuous 15' utility easement behind Vine Drive will need approval
from the utility providers.
Response: Acknowledged. A modified easement is not provided, in accordance with
the recent utility coordination meeting
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 94 Created: 8/28/2009
[8/28/09] The site plan shows a 15' utility easement along the entire property which does
not correspond to the plat.
acknowledged
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 72 Created: 8/26/2009
(8/26/09] The construction drawings specify the use of 8:1 tapers in the existing interim
condition for Vine Drive. AASHTO's "Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" 2004,
specifies that an 8:1 taper is appropriate for design speeds up to 30 mph and 15:1 for
design speeds up to 50 mph. Given the minor arterial classification for Vine Drive (and the
50 mph design speed of a minor arterial), please use the 15:1 taper.
Response: The tapers have been modified to be 15:1
Number: 73 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The storm drain system within Vine Drive is lacking meeting minimum cover depth
below the pavement. (Storm lines A, D & F). Perhaps raising the road should be looked at if
the outlet depth is apparently set.
Response: The cover has been addressed, please see revised storm drain
plan/profiles
Number: 75 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] On the construction drawings, please add a typical cross section for Vine, label
street names on the plan view (Vine, Redwood, etc.), and a vicinity map would be ideal.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 76 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The interim condition is very difficult to follow and review over the contours of the
grading plan. Please prepare a horizontal control plan to provide more clarity on the interim
condition.
Response: Additional information has been added to help clarify this. If needed, a
separate plan for the interim improvements will be provided at final.
Number: 79 Created: 8/26/2009
(8/26/09] Please ensure the property line boundary is shown on all sheets of the
construction plan set. Sheet 4 of the plan set does not indicate property line boundaries to
verify if all the grading can be contained on -site. It does appear that offsite grading will be
needed at least to the east.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 80 Created: 8/26/2009
Page 8
[8/26/09] The grading plan appear to show curb and gutter on both sides of Vine Drive,
which has my assuming that both sides of the street along the development's property
frontage is to be built at this time, however interim tapers are only shown on the north side.
Is the curb and gutter (and driveway) on the south side not being proposed at this time and
the grading plan combines showing interim and ultimate conditions? Again an interim
horizontal control plan would be beneficial. Please note that the frontage improvements
abutting the infiltration pond will need to be satisfied with this development.
Response: Both sides of the street are proposed for improvement. Additional
information has been added to clarify the interim striping
Number: 82 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The ultimate design should call out what the limits of the design are tying into and
show such on the drawings. Does the terminus of the offsite design to the west tie into
designs done with Old Town North? Does the terminus of the offsite design to the east need
to show a transition to tie into existing edge of pavement?
Response: The ultimate design at Jerome and Redwood both tie into the design
presented with the Old Town North subdivision as prepared by Shear Engineering. The far
eastern terminus does not necessarily tie into existing since it is anticipated that the ultimate
improvements will one day continue towards the east.
Number: 95 Created: 8/28/2009
(8/28/09] On the construction drawings, please further refine the diosplay of information to
be more readable (and thereby more scanable). There is information such as elevation
numbers on the grading plan that cannot be easily read and won't scan (in the hatched
spillway area). Numbers, text, and data need to not have any overlapping shading, lines,
etc.
Response: Acknowledged. Additional display enhancement can be provided at final if
needed.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: General
Number: 1 Created: 8/18/2009
[8/18/09] Please see the Light & Power comments entered for the ODP, (#30-09).
Complete, Street lights along Vine are shown on Landscape plans.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 86 Created: 8/27/2009
1 met with the applicants and we resolved several issues: 24-foot EAE is acceptable; change
location of EAE; add a fire hydrant; rollover curb west of building; remote FDC required; two
Knox Boxes are required.
acknowledged
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Matt Wempe
Topic: General
Number: 91 Created: 8/28/2009
(8/28/09] The plan set needs to be updated to incorporate our conversation at
Transportation Coordination on August 20, 2009. This includes an attached sidewalk along
the south side of Vine Drive and the relocated Vine Drive alignment.
Response: Acknowledged. Please see revised plans.
Number: 92 Created: 8/28/2009
Page 9
[8/28/09] Depending on the building location to the east, please include on -site east/west
pedestrian connectivity.
Will work with staff during final submittal to best address concern of internal
connectivity.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 66 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] Please correct the typo (the word landscape) in the title block, in the "sheet title"
section.
Complete
Number: 67 Created: 8/26/2009
(8/26/09] The landscape plan has line over text & text over text issues.
Complete
Topic: Plat
Number: 61 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The boundary closes, the legal does not. The legal & boundary do not match.
Number: 62 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The southwest corner of section 1 description in the legal & boundary do not
match.
Number: 63 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The plat title is missing from the statement of ownership and subdivision.
Number: 64 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] Please change the plat name to "Inverness Innovation Park First Filing" or
something similar.
Number: 69 Created: 8/26/2009
(8/26/09] All right of ways & easements outside of the boundary, need to be recorded by
separate document.
Number: 70 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The area of lot 1 needs to reflect the right of way dedicated for Vine Drive.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 65 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] Please note that there are line over text issues on the site plan.
yes
Topic: Trash Enclosure Plan
Number: 68 Created: 8/26/2009
[8/26/09] The trash enclosure plan looks good. No comments.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: F/oodp/ain
Number: 52 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/091 As discussed during the meeting on 8-18-2009, the City has new data that shows
that the entire RM12 site would be impacted by the 100-year floodplain. More water is
flowing down Vine Drive than what is shown in the FEMA modeling. This new information is
not regulatory, but it is highly recommended that this information be used for design
Page 10
purposes. The new data shows approximately 2 feet of flooding across the site in the 100-
year flood. Therefore, it is recommended that the lowest floor elevation and all HVAC,
electrical, equipment, etc. be elevated 2 additional feet above the flood elevation. Any
proposed road improvements to Vine Drive should also take this information into account.
Please contact Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, 224-6036, with any questions about this issue.
Response: As per Stormwater recommendations, the buildings and adjacent grades
have been raised to 4.0 feet above existing ground. Unfortunately, the street improvements
along Vine are highly constrained by the existing condition. Raising the street would require
extensive off -site improvements which are not currently feasible
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 53 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] The volume for the quantity detention needs to be calculated assuming no release
for the 100-year storm. This will increase the required volume a little. Also, the volume was
a little low compared to calculations run in our office. I got around .95 ac-ft. The FAA
spreadsheet should have rain data every 5 minutes, not 10. 1 have a spreadsheet that I can
email you if you need it.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 54 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Since our design review meeting, new information regarding the electrical power
company's concerns have surfaced. These issues will need to be worked out before a
hearing can be scheduled. More specifically, achieving the required volume in the detention
pond and still meeting the power company's concerns.
Response: The pond has been revised in accordance with PRPA requirements and
presented to PRPA. An LOI from PRPA will be provided prior to the public hearing.
Number: 55 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] A letter of intent is required from the City of Fort Collins Natural Resources
Department and from the Coy Ditch Company before a public hearing. The use of this off -
site property for the extra detention volume required and for directing the spillway on this
property and over the ditch makes this a requirement.
Response: We have recently met with the Coy representative, and he has approved
the revised pond layout. An LOI will be provided prior to public hearing.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 56 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/091 The existing City water main in Vine is a 6-inch. Revise labels and notes
accordingly.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 57 Created: 8/25/2009
(8/25/09] Connections to the 21-inch sanitary sewer must be at a manhole.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 58 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Show the curb stop and meter pit on the water service to the west building.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 59 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/09] Show the water main and sanitary sewer crossings in the storm sewer profiles.
Install steel casings on the water/sewer lines when below pipelines which are 24-inches or
greater diameter.
Response: Acknowledged.
Number: 60 Created: 8/25/2009
[8/25/091 See relined plans for other comments.
Page 11
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
Number: 2 Created: 8/19/2009
[8/19/09] Show building footprint dimensions on site plan for all buildings, including the bike
parking pavilion.
acknowledged
Number: 3 Created: 8/19/2009
[8/19/09] The long-term parking spaces will need to be identified with a raised "employee
parking only" sign.
Will include note as described above for final submittal.
Number: 4 Created: 8/19/2009
[8/19/09] The building square footage for Building 1 is indicated as being 28,980 s.f. on the
building footprint, but as being 27,819 s.f. in the "proposed uses Building #1 table" on the
site plan. Which figure is correct?
Corrected on drawings.
Number: 5 Created: 8/19/2009
[8/19/09] Each parking lot landscape island is required to have a tree and have a dimension
of at least 8' in its smallest dimension per Section 3.2.1(E)(5)C. Some islands don't contain
trees and are smaller than 8'.
We have provided parking lot islands less than 8' wide and do not indicate trees in
those islands. The reason is that the Poudre Fire Authority asked that those islands be
accessible with roll-over curbs. The trees that would have been in those islands have been
moved the minimum distance possible within the general landscape island and have not
been reduced in number, providing shade for the parking lot area. There did not seem to be
any point in providing 8' for the islands or providing landscaping in the island if a fire truck is
to drive thru the island. We have increased the landscaping size and plantings where the
PFA did not need truck access. Refer site plan.
Number: 6 Created: 8/19/2009
[8/19/09] Signage isn't approved by this PDP, and should be removed from drawings. FYI,
the RM12 signage shown on top of the canopy on the front of Bldg 1 doesn't comply with the
sign code. Signs aren't allowed on top of canopy.
All signage to be under separate permit.
Number: 7 Created: 8/19/2009
[8/19/09] The solar collector car park structure needs to be clearly shown/labeled on the
site plan, with building dimensions shown.
acknowledged
Comments from Current Planning — please see redlines.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
Sincerely:
Ted Shepard
Chief Planner
Page 12
Page 13
HB En6ineering, LLC
Transportation En�ineerin�Sohrtions
Memorandum
TO: Mr. Mike Bello
Current Planning Department — City of
Fort Collins
FROM: Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E
DATE: August 10, 2009
SUBJECT: RMII Transportation Impact Study
-0 RSq_
The Transportation Impact Study for the Rocky Mountain Innovative Initiative (RMII),
dated July 2009, only addresses the PDP submittal for the project. It is my understanding
an ODP submittal for a larger parcel of land is also being submitted with the PDP.
Generally, the TIS for an ODP is brief and "broad brushed" and usually looks at the long
term impacts of a wide range of land uses. The developer is currently looking at primarily
office uses at this time and compatibility or potential traffic impacts are not a perceived
issue at this time. If the City desires, during the second round of review, the TIS that is
currently being submitted can be modified and updated to include the potential other uses
included in the ODP.
L1.11 L-�ngineolng. LLC
i fill Tati'lor Lane
Fort C'o lins. CO X052h
Phone, 9'0-VXt 7551 FAX: 970-"5-89+2
F.'1.liL r,,[;h;eerin, l,ll�broorfhond.nct
Topic: Plat
Number: 10 Created: 8/25/2009
[9/24/09] The Coy Ditch buffer zone line is not shown accurately. Highlight actual line with
heavier line type.
This will be done on the next submittal.
[8/25/091 Delineate the buffer lines along the lake Canal and Coy Ditch. Label lines "Natural
Features Buffer Zone Line."
This has been changed as requested, and is shown on the plans. Location has been corrected,
line weight will be addressed with next submittal. (RP)
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 13 Created: 8/25/2009
[9/24/09] Existing trees that will be removed as part of the project do not need to be shown on
the Site Plan.
-addressed
[8/25/09] Remove topo lines from plan, not necessary. Do not show any of the demolished or
removed items for the plan. The Site Plan should only show the proposed conditions and any
existing conditions to remain as part of the development plan.
-addressed
Number: 20
[9/24/09] Add to SP1.2.
[8/25/09] Add the following note to the plan
allowable uses within a buffer zone.
-addressed
Topic: Utility Plans
Created: 8/25/2009
Refer to Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for
Number: 45 Created: 8/25/2009
[9/24/091
[8/25/09] Add a demolition plan to the set so that all of the items to be removed, demolished or
deconstructed can be clearly seen. Demolition Plan has been added.
Number: 110 Created: 9/24/2009
[9/24/09] Remove Environmental Planner signature line from sheets 1,2, 7-14. Add to Sheet 5.
This has been done.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: General
Number: 74 Created: 8/26/2009
[9/22/09] Was a letter of intent provided from Urban Development Partners? I would like to see
some sort of written acknowledgement from the owner of Parcel B given this sight distance
easement affects that property.
[8/26/09] Sheet 6 of the construction drawings sketches out what I measure as a required sight
distance easement based upon LCUASS 7-16 and the driveway location. Most of this occurs on
the future lot to the east, however a sight distance easement would need to be dedicated at this
time with the creation of the driveway access on the current lot.
Page 2
City of
F6rt Collins
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Development Review Team
Steve Dush, Current Planning Director
August 6, 2009
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 N. College Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
kgov. com/currentplanning
5.�, 1
RM12 — Inverness Innovation Park — Submittal and Review
A submittal and review meeting has been scheduled for Inverness Innovation
Park Overall Development Plan and RM12 — Phase One P.D.P. for:
Wednesday, August 12, 2009, 2:00 — 4:00 p.m. in the Energy
Conference Room 700 Wood Street
RM12 is Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative and they have received funding
from the City of Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority and the New Market Tax
Credit program to develop the land, build public improvements and construct new
buildings on both sides of 200 to 500 East Vine Drive. Phase One would be on
the former Waste Management Site on north side of East Vine Drive.
Phase One P.D.P. will be submitted on Wednesday August 12, 2009. Staff
needs to be on hand to check the submittal for completeness and to meet with
the applicant's team to ask questions, seek clarifications and offer comments to
the extent possible. The review schedule will also be described.
There is a critical deadline in satisfying the requirements of the New Market Tax
Credit program. This deadline is late November of 2009. In order to meet this
deadline, this project will require an expedited review process.
This submittal and review meeting is intended to allow Staff and the applicant's
team a chance to identify the most significant issues as early as possible.
Formal written comments and redlined plans would not be due for another two
weeks — Wednesday, August 26, 2009.
For reference, please refer to Preliminary Design Review of August 20, 2008,
City Council Meeting of May 12, 2009 (Item 3) and Ordinance 053, 2009,
adopted on Second Reading on June 9, 2009 (Item 7).
THE LAKE CANAL COMPANY
THE LAKE CANAL RESERVOIR COMPANY
(970) 352-0222
July 16, 2009
Michael Bello
Urban Development Partners, LLC
1220 S. College Ave, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Inverness Innovation Park on Vine
Mike:
The Board of Directors of The Lake Canal Company met on July 14, 2009. Preliminary plans were
presented dated 6/24/09. Plans were presented to anticipate the construction of one building
with associated parking starting later this year with a second building being added later. The
plans were approved in principle subject to the following conditions:
1. The Board of Directors shall approve the final plat with approval verified by signing an
approved signature block.
2. The canal right-of-way shall be shown on the plat as being fifty (501) from the center of
the canal labeled as being exclusive to The Lake Canal Company and any activity within the right-
of-way requiring the written approval of The Lake Canal Company.
3. Any proposed improvements encroaching upon the canal right-of-way will require The
Lake Canal Company approving an adjustment to the canal right-of-way or The Lake Canal
Company entering into an acceptable encroachment agreement before approving the final plat.
Please keep us informed of any changes or progress that may impact The Lake Canal Company.
clln
Don Magnuson
Superintendent
33040 Railroad Avenue 9 P.O. Box 104 • Lucerne, Colorado 80646
City of
F6rt Collins
August 26, 2008
Michael Bello
Urban Development Partners, LLC
1220 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
mbello10(a)comcast. net
Michael,
Current Planning
281 N. College Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/currentp/anning
For your information, attached is a copy of staff's comments for Inverness Innovation
Park Preliminary Design Review, which was presented before the development
review team on August 20, 2008.
The comments are informally offered by staff to assist you in preparing the detailed
components of a project application. Modifications and additions to these comments
may be made at the time of formal review of this project.
The City's Current Planning Department coordinates the development review process. I
am the Project Planner for your project. I will be commenting as well as assisting in the
coordination process. If you have any questions regarding these comments or the next
steps in the review process, please feel free to call me at 970-221-6750.
Sincerely,
Shelby Sommer
City Planner
CC: Michael Jensen — mike(Wortcollinsre.com
Olexa Tkachenko- ot(@Previewap.com
Bob Gowing - bobg(a-)-QEDassoc.com
Don Bundy - db(a)the-architects-studio.com
City of
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
Flirt Collins STAFF COMMENTS
ITEM: Proposed office, laboratory and light industrial uses on the
properties at 213, 232, 300, 400, 412 and 500 East Vine Drive.
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2008
APPLICANT: Michael Bello
Urban Development Partners, LLC
1220 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
mbello10(a)comcast.net
LAND USE DATA: The properties are located on the north and south sides of East
Vine Drive between Jerome Street to the west and Redwood Street to the east. The
historic Inverness Stock Farm home is located on a portion of the property and will be
renovated as office space.
APPLICANT QUESTIONS: The applicant wished to have the following questions
addressed during the Preliminary Design Review. A brief response follows each
question and further comments can be found in the departmental comment section.
1. Option 1 vs. Option 2 configuration:
a. Can the URA be extended to the south parcel?
Christina Vincent: The process for extending the URA North College
project area boundary would take an action by the URA Board (Council).
Preliminarily, this is being evaluated to the East of this property however,
not currently including any property to the South of Vine Drive. The
proposal would need to be presented to the North College CAG for review
and recommendation and then a revision of the Urban Renewal Plan
boundary and existing conditions study complete for the [proposed
expanded area. A public meeting will be held to provide adequate timing
for public comment. The findings are then presented to Planning and
Zoning Board for recommendation and ultimately to the URA Board for
approval. This process takes a couple months from start to finish if all
goes as planned.
Additionally, there may be some additional concerns if the parcels are
already in the DDA boundaries, the DDA has first right of refusal to the tax
increment. This means (best case scenario) the URA and DDA enter into
an Inter -governmental agreement
2
rt_
F6Collins
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
regarding the TIF and work out a share back option. (This is not
impossible but adds time to the overall project expansion.) Not applicable
to our current design.
b. Which option would be more desirable from an environmental
perspective as it pertains to the development on the south parcel and
any perceived impacts on the Gustav Swanson Natural Area?
Dana Leavitt: Since the south parcel zoning precludes locating a
structure of more than one story next to a natural feature buffer, placing
the parking in proximity to the buffer is the preferred option. Our current
plans anticipate buildings along the street portion of the lot and parking
along the natural area as a buffer.
2. What are the requirements for pedestrian crossings between parcels for both
options?
Ward Stanford: Traffic Operations can not state whether it would
approve a crosswalk at this development's location without further study
and the decision as to which plan will be submitted We are not requesting
a pedestrian crossing for this submittal,
3. What are the setback requirements from the Gustav Swanson Natural Area?
Dana Leavitt: Setbacks from Gustav Swanson natural Area actually fall
under natural feature buffers. The quantitative buffer from the Coy ditch
and associated ponds is 50 feet. As with the case of the Lake Canal
buffer, a smaller buffer will be acceptable using the quantitative standards
in Section 3.4.1 (E)(1). The Natural Areas staff is willing to work with the
applicant to develop a mitigation plan for the natural area that reflects the
requirements in said section of the LUC. We are not requesting approval
for any structures or parking on this parcel at this time. Our plans do
include approval for the detention pond which buffers the Gustav Swanson
natural area and we have coordinated this element impact with the City's
Environmental Staff.
4. What development improvements are allowed in the buffer space identified
above?
Dana Leavitt: In regards to allowable uses within a buffer zone, per
Section 3.4.1 (E)(2) of the LUC, "No disturbance shall occur within any
buffer zone and no person shall engage in any activity that will disturb,
remove, fill, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area, including vegetation
3
City of
F6rtCollins
\S`
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
within natural habitats or features including without limitation lakes, ponds,
stream corridors and wetlands, except as provided in subsection c below;"
Subsection c states: "The decision maker may allow disturbance or
construction activity within the buffer zone for the following limited
purposes:
1. mitigation of development activities;
2. restoration of previously disturbed or degraded areas or planned
enhancement projects to benefit the natural area or feature;
3. emergency public safety activities;
4. utility installations when such activities and installations cannot
reasonably be located outside the buffer zone or other nearby areas of
development;
5. construction of a trail or pedestrian walkway that will provide public
access for educational or recreational purposes provided that the trail
or walkway is compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of
the natural habitat or feature; and
6. construction or installation of recreation features or public park
elements, provided that such features or elements are compatible with
the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature."
Our current plans have been coordinated with the City's Environmental
Staff and will comply with these and their requirements.
5. Is infiltration going to be an allowable option for the Stormwater requirements for
the site? What standards and conditions would apply?
Glen Schlueter: Yes, infiltration is an allowable option for drainage
release from the site. The requirements for an infiltration pond include
sizing the detention/retention pond for two times the volume of the 100
year runoff and there has to be a back up method to empty the pond so
that runoff water is released in less than 72 hours. In this case the
obvious method would be to use a pump. Also the obvious place to pump
to would be the Coy Ditch, so the ditch owners would have to approve
discharging into their ditch. Pumping would occur after a storm so the
ditch should have the capacity for it and the ditch owners' liability is
minimal. The Cache La Poudre River may be an optional discharge point
for a pump also. A back up to the pump is not required since the primary
release is infiltration. If infiltration fails in the future and the primary
release is by pumping, then a back up pumping system would be required
at that time. In either case a maintenance schedule for the pumping
system would be required.
2
City of
F6rt Collins
/110��
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
There is presently no required infiltration rate or factor of safety for an
infiltration rate. This is to be determined by Geotechnical Engineering
Company such as CTL / Thompson which prepared the information in the
submittal package. We have coordinated this element with both the City's
Environmental and Stormwater Departments. Our plans reflect
agreements made and a design that meets the City's criteria.
6. We'd like to understand, from the City's perspective, the options and trade-off
allowed for the Lake Canal ditch buffer on the north parcel. It is
important to pin this down so we know what boundaries we have to work with for
the footprint of the buildings.
Dana Leavitt: Where the quantitative buffer cannot be achieved then the
qualitative standards in Section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use code (LUC)
will be applied to the buffer along the Lake Canal. In this case, if the
proposed development footprint does not exceed the existing footprint, the
applicant will be able to apply the buffer zone standards. We have
coordinated this with the City's Environmental Staff and are in compliance
with their recommendations and requirements.
7. Can we use the existing water taps that exist on the north and south parcels and
can we get credit for them when we apply for new taps?
Roger Buffington: Credit will be given for existing services where
accounts were established and can be applied on the property where the
service currently exists. No comment.
8. There is a high power transmission line that just crosses the southern parcel.
Are there any setbacks from the towers or any other issues we need to address
for this utility?
This line is owned by Platte River Power Authority. Please contact Mike
Dahl at 226-4000 We met with Tom McCormack 7/8/09 and are
anticipating a letter of understanding and agreement for our proposed
improvements,
9. We would like a simple summary statement to confirm our understandings of the
floodplain issues affecting the site under the revised FEMA designations.
1. The description of the sites relative to the floodplain in the PDR
appears to be correct. The parcel to the east on the north side of Vine
Drive and the parcel south of Vine Drive are primarily in the FEMA-
designated 100-year Poudre River floodplain, including the existing
5
City of
F6rt Collins
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
house. The other Parcel to the west on the north side of Vine Drive is
primarily in the Poudre River 500-year floodplain. Acknowledged.
2. A remodel to the existing house that is to be converted to office space
is subject to the substantial improvement requirements (If the structure
is improved more than 50% of its value, then it will be required to be
elevated or floodproofed 2 ft above the 100-year flood level). If the
house is historically designated, then it may qualify for a variance to
the substantial improvement requirements. Itemized cost lists of
improvements and a valuation of the existing house (excluding land
value) is required to make the substantial improvement determination.
Not applicable
3. Any new non-residential structures in the Poudre River 100-year
floodplain must be elevated or floodproofed 2 ft. above the flood level.
Acknowledged
4. No new residential or mixed -use structures are allowed in the Poudre
River 100-year floodplain.
Acknowledged
5. No new life -safety, emergency response or hazardous materials critical
facilities are allowed in the Poudre River 100-year floodplain.
Acknowledged
6. No new life -safety or emergency response critical facilities are allowed
in the Poudre River 500-year floodplain. Hazardous materials critical
facilities are allowed in the 500-year floodplain, but it is recommended
they be protected to the 500-year flood level.
Acknowledged
7. New non-residential structures in the 500-year floodplain are not
required to be elevated or floodproofed per City Code, but it is highly
recommended.
Acknowledged
8. A floodplain use permit is required for any work (remodel, new building,
parking lot, detention pond, landscaping, etc.) that is proposed in the
100-year floodplain. A separate permit is required for each site
element. The floodplain use permit fee is $25.
Acknowledged
9. Chapter 10 of City Code contains all of the floodplain regulations. A
Quick Guide to the Poudre River regulations is available on our
website.
Acknowledged
10. Floodplain development review checklists, floodplain use permit, Quick
Guide and other forms are available on our website at
http://www.fcgov.com/stormwater/fp-forms.php Acknowledged
X
City of
Fort Collins
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
11. The Floodplain Admin contact for this project is Marsha Hilmes-
Robinson, 224-6036.
Our plans are in compliance with these requirements.
10. We would like to get confirmation that Vine Drive can and will be down graded
to something less than an Arterial classification and what we need to do to have
that implemented concurrent with our development.
Ward Stanford: Current traffic volumes on Vine are at the low end of a
minor arterial. Traffic staff does not believe it would be
prudent to reclassify Vine to a lower classification until traffic volumes are
also reduced to the lower classification.
Current volume studies were taken west of Lemay. Additional volume
studies could be performed on Vine in the area between College and
Linden to see what the volumes are in that segment of Vine. If they are
less, the applicant could request a reclassification via the process to
change the Master Street Plan. Please understand the request could be
approved or denied. Our plans anticipate that Vine will remain a Minor
Arterial. If it were to change to a Collector status we can accommodate
that change.
GENERAL COMMENTS: The following departmental agencies have offered comments
for this proposal based two alternative plans and project narrative which were presented
to the review team:
ZONING
Contact Info: Peter Barnes, 416-2355, pbarnesCcDfcgov.com
1. The office/lab uses in the CCN are a Type 1 public hearing. The office in the CCR is
also a Type 1, but the CCR doesn't allow lab uses as a principal use. If the lab
space of the RM12 building is determined to be a principal use, then that user isn't
allowed in the zone, except that a recent code revision may allow the addition of the
use to this specific site (Section 1.3.4 of the LUC). We are not proposing lab uses
on the south parcel (CCR zoning) those buildings will be office or possibly office
warehouse type uses. The RM12 lab space is a very small component of the space;
less than 10% of the building's square feet. Lab space is wet lab.
2. Buildings over 40'tall are subject to the Building Height Review requirements in Sec.
3.5.1 (G). Maximum height allowed in CCN zone is 4 stories. Maximum height
allowed in CCR is 3 stories. The proposed 4 story building in Option 2 would require
a modification. Our current plans do not anticipate any structure higher than 4
stories in the CCN and 3 stories in the CCR. Any structure over 40 will comply with
the requirements of Section 3.5. 1 (G) as noted. See attached.
7
City of
F6rt Collins
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
3. The CCN property is subject to compliance with the applicable standards and
guidelines of the North College Avenue Corridor Plan. Acknowledged.
4. A building on the CCR lot must be stepped down to 1 story in height where it directly
abuts any natural area protection buffer. Acknowledged.
5. A parking lot by itself on the CCR site (Option 1) doesn't comply with the parking
location standard in Sec. 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2). Our plans have changed and we are no
longer proposing that option.
6. Number of handicap parking stalls provided must comply with number required per
Sec. 3.2.2(K)(5). We will comply.
7. Parking lots are generally required to be on the same lot as the building for which
they are intended to serve. The Code does allow the City to approve a remote lot,
i.e. the lot on the south side of Vine in Option 1. However, a walk light or some other
device may be required in order to ensure that people can safely cross Vine Drive.
Our plans have changed and we are no longer proposing that option. Acknowledged
STORMWATER UTILITY
Contact Info: Glen Schlueter, 224-6065, gschlueter(cDfcgov.com
1. In general all the previous comments still apply and the following is additional
information discussed at the PDR on 08-22-08.
2. The applicant mentioned that there can be flooding on the south side of Vine Dr.,
due to the Coy ditch culvert under the railroad backing up water. The
detention/retention shown should help mitigate that situation during a storm event so
that may be a benefit to the owners of the Coy ditch that could help in negotiations
with them. However if the culvert plugs when the source of water is from the
diversion off of the river there is no benefit to them. If another release for the water
is provided or if there is a commitment to clear the culvert under the railroad, that
should be something the ditch company could benefit from as well as this proposal
especially the option with a building on the south side of Vine Dr. We are proposing
infiltration in the detention pond which has been coordinated with the City's Storm
Water staff.
WATER & WASTEWATER
Contact Info: Roger Buffington, 221-6854, rbuffington(a fcgov.com
1. Existing water mains and sanitary sewers in the area include: 6-inch water main and
21-inch sanitary sewer in Vine. No comment required.
2. Water and sewer services which extend onto these properties must be used (if
properly sized) or abandoned at the main. Understood and will comply
A sight easement is shown on the plat, but only for that portion within the RMY boundary. The
offsite sight easement will be provided by separate document.
Number: 81 Created: 8/26/2009
[9/22/09] Carried over for reference.
[8/26/09] Please ensure that the drive approaches onto Vine are constructed fully in concrete to
the property line in accordance to our driveway detail. The plans seem to show them more like
street intersections. Note that the driveway detail provided in the details section is not the radius
style driveway as proposed on the plans.
This has been done. Approaches are now shown to be concrete back to property lines.
Number: 93 Created: 8/28/2009
[9/22/09] The site plan appears to have some discrepancies in the reporting of square footage
for Building #2. The commercial square footage is listed as 23,400 in 3 different locations, but
was crossed out in one location and revised to 21,000. If the correct amount is 21,000, then
please also revise this in the two other locations (and the TDR fee submitted is then correct). If
the correct amount is the 23,400, then an additional TDR fee amount is needed.
[8/28/09] In checking with Sheri Langenberger, the TDR fee provided appears to fall short of
the amount needed. The site plan specifies a building square footage size that is higher than the
size indicated in the TDR fee that was calculated and then posted.
-square footages have been coordinated to show correct amount of 21,000 s.f.
Number: 97 Created: 9/22/2009
[9/22/09] The variance requests need to be stamped; I don't have any further concerns other
than the requests being signed and stamped.
These letters have been signed & stamped.
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 118 Created: 9/25/2009
[9/25/09] At the time of final plan submittal please provide the following information on the
landscape plan for sight distance easements:
- Fences shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height and shall be of an open design.
- Deciduous trees may be permitted to encroach into the clearance triangle provided that the
lowest branch of any such tree shall be at least six (6) feet from grade.
- At the intersection of roadways or vehicular access points, no plant material with a mature
height greater than two (2) feet shall be planted within sight triangle measuring thirty (30) feet
along the boundary of each of the intersecting roadways, measured from the point of
intersecting curblines, except where engineering standards indicate otherwise.
This is included on sheet 2 of the landscape plan.
Number: 119 Created: 9/25/2009
[9/25/09] Add "Park" to the title of the plan to be consistent with the other drawings.
Complete.
Topic: Plat
Number: 71
Created: 8/26/2009
Page 3
City of
F6rtCollins
�f�
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
3. Existing water services to these properties include: 3/4-inch to 213 Vine, 3/4-inch to
408 Vine and 3/4-inch to 500 Vine. No comment required
4. Development fees and water rights will be due at time of building permit. Credit will
be given for existing services where accounts were established and can be applied
on the property where the service currently exists. Understood, no other comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Contact Info: Dana Leavitt, 221-6143, dleavitt(aD-fcgov.com
1. Where the quantitative buffer cannot be achieved then the qualitative standards in
Section 3.4.1(E)(1) of the Land Use code (LUC) will be applied to the buffer along
the Lake Canal. In this case, if the proposed development footprint does not exceed
the existing footprint, the applicant will be able to apply the buffer zone standards.
We have met with the City's Environmental staff and agreed to a direction for this
buffer. Our plans reflect those agreements.
2. Since the south parcel zoning precludes locating a structure of more than one story
next to a natural feature buffer, placing the parking in proximity to the buffer is the
preferred option. Agree and that is our current plan.
3. Setbacks from Gustav Swanson natural Area actually fall under natural feature
buffers. The quantitative buffer from the Coy ditch and associated ponds is 50'. As
with the case of the Lake Canal buffer, a smaller buffer will be acceptable using the
quantitative standards in Section 3.4.1(E)(1). The Natural Areas staff is willing to
work with the applicant to develop a mitigation plan for the natural area that reflects
the requirements in said section of the LUC. We have worked on this with the City's
Environmental Staff and our plans reflect the agreements made and the
requirements for this area.
4. In regards to allowable uses within a buffer zone, per Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the LUC,
"No disturbance shall occur within any buffer zone and no person shall engage in
any activity that will disturb, remove, fill, dredge, clear, destroy or alter any area,
including vegetation within natural habitats or features including without limitation
lakes, ponds, stream corridors and wetlands, except as provided in subsection c
below;" Subsection c states: "The decision maker may allow disturbance or
construction activity within the buffer zone for the following limited purposes:
1. mitigation of development activities;
2. restoration of previously disturbed or degraded areas or planned
enhancement projects to benefit the natural area or feature;
3. emergency public safety activities;
4. utility installations when such activities and installations cannot reasonably
be located outside the buffer zone or other nearby areas of development;
9
City of
Fort Collins
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
5. construction of a trail or pedestrian walkway that will provide public access
for educational or recreational purposes provided that the trail or walkway is
compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat
or feature; and
6. construction or installation of recreation features or public park elements,
provided that such features or elements are compatible with the ecological
character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature."
Our current plans have been coordinated with the City's Environmental Staff and will
comply with these requirements.
POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY
Contact Info: Carle Dann, 416-2869, cdann(cDpoudre-fire.org
1. ADDRESS NUMERALS: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting
the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting
background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). 97UFC901.4.4.
Understood and will comply. Acknowledged
2. REQUIRED ACCESS: A fire lane may be required. Fire lanes shall be visible by
painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan
shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria
already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet
the following general requirements:
• Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete)
capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be
used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites.
• Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and
enforceable.
• Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
• Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the
fire lane (30 feet for buildings three or more stories in height).
If a fire lane cannot be provided, the building shall be fire sprinklered.
97UFC 901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1 We have discussed this plan with the
Poudre Fire Authority and are in compliance with their requirements.
3. TURNING RADII: Minimum turning radii for emergency -response apparatus on any
fire apparatus roadway is 25 feet inside, 50 feet outside. UFC 902.2.2.3 Refer to
site plan. Acknowledged
4. WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the
water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and
water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum
flow and spacing requirements include:
10
City of
FortCollins
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
• Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not farther than
300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter
• Residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure,
spaced not farther than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter
• Residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure,
spaced not farther than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers
thereafter.
These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire
sprinkler systems. 97UFC 901.2.2.2 Understood and will comply.
5. SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: This proposed buildings shall be equipped with
approved, automatic fire -sprinkler systems. Understood and will comply
6. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: Fire department connections shall be installed
remote from the buildings, and located on the street or fire lane side
of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire
department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire code
official. If possible, a fire hydrant shall be located within 100 feet of the FDC. PFA
Bureau Policy. Understood and will comply
7. FIRE LINE REQUIREMENT: Buildings that are required to be fire sprinklered shall
have a minimum 6-inch fire line unless hydraulic calculations can support a smaller
fire line. Understood and will comply.
8. KNOX BOX REQUIRED: Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted
on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or
fire alarm system. 97UFC 902.4; PFA BUREAU POLICY 88-20 Understood and will
comply.
9. STANDPIPES AND FIRE PUMP: Buildings four or more stories in height are
required to be equipped with firefighting standpipes in every stairwell. The standpipe
system must be capable of supplying a minimum 100 psi to the top floor; an
approved fire pump may be required to obtain this minimum pressure. IFC 905.3.1
Understood and will comply -- currently no buildings are taller than 3 stories.
10. STAIRWELL SIGNAGE: Approved stairwell identification signs shall be posted at
each floor level in all enclosed stairways in buildings four or more stories in height.
97UFC1210.4 and Appendix I-C Understood and will comply.
ELECTRIC UTILITY
Contact Info: Doug Martine, 221-6700, utilities(ac�fcgov.com
1. Existing underground electric is along Vine Dr. Developer will need to coordinate
power requirements, facility locations, and electric development charges with Light &
Power Engineering. Understood and will comply.
11
Fort
Cltyof
Collins
f�
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Contact Info: Ward Stanford, 221-6820, wstanford(cDfcgov.com
1. Current traffic volumes on Vine are at the low end of a minor arterial. Traffic does not
believe it would be prudent to reclassify Vine to a lower classification until traffic
volumes are also reduced to the lower classification. Current design anticipates the
road staying a Minor Arterial. Any future change to a lower classification can be
accommodated.
2. Current volume studies were taken west of Lemay. Additional volume studies could
be performed on Vine in the area between College and Linden to see what the
volumes are in that segment of Vine. If they are less, the applicant could request a
reclassification via the process to change the Master Street Plan. Please
understand the request could be approved or denied. Understood. We may
consider, but at this time our plans do not anticipate any reclassification of the road.
3. Traffic Operations believes the layout with buildings and parking on both sides of
Vine is a better plan. This is due to reducing the amount of pedestrians needing to
cross Vine each day. Our plans anticipate buildings on both sides of the road.
4. Traffic Operations can not state whether it would approve a crosswalk at this
developments location without further study and the decision as to which plan will be
submitted. We are not requesting that at this time.
5. In general, Traffic Op's views a crosswalk at Linden and Vine as a good possible
location. No comment.
ENGINEERING
Contact Info: Marc Virata, 221-6605, mvirata(cDfcgov.com
1. General comments made at the conceptual review for the project still apply.
2. Please note a slight clarification to #12 in the meeting minute notes from the 7/18
meeting -- an offsite easement for the pond does not negate the responsibility of
frontage improvements (cash in lieu can be considered instead of constructing). Not
applicable as we are platting the detention pond area.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Contact Info: Alyson McGee, 221-6597, amcgeeCcDfcgov.com
1. The site at 232 E. Vine has historic significance as the former Inverness Horse
Farm. A formal determination of eligibility is needed from the Director of Advance
Planning and Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission. The house is likely
individually eligible for local landmarking. The outbuilding likely lacks sufficient
integrity/significance for individual landmarking, but could be landmarked in
association with house if desired by development team. Further consultation with
12
Fort
City of
Collins
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
Historic Preservation staff regarding rehabilitation of house is advised (for
appropriateness and funding incentives). Re -use of outbuilding is preferred, but not
required. Landscape screening between house and new construction can decrease
visual impact to house. Our submittal addresses this issue, The first phase building
is significantly separated from the property line and the house. This phase should
not be an issue, The second phase building is the one that would be most impacted
by this requirement. We have identified criteria for the design of this building and
would look for feedback to determine if that criterion sufficiently meets the LUC's
requirements.
2. Structures as 213 E. Vine were determined not individually eligible for local
landmarking in 2006. No comment required.
ADVANCE PLANNING/URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
Contact Info: Christina Vincent, 416-2294, cvincent(o-).fcgov.com
1. The process for extending the URA North College project area boundary would take
an action by the URA Board (Council). Preliminarily, this is being evaluated to the
East of this property however, not currently including any property to the South of
Vine Drive. The proposal would need to be presented to the North College CAG for
review and recommendation and then a revision of the Urban Renewal Plan
boundary and existing conditions study complete for the [proposed expanded area.
A public meeting will be held to provide adequate timing for public comment. The
findings are then presented to Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation and
ultimately to the URA Board for approval. This process takes a couple months from
start to finish if all goes as planned. We are not looking to extend the URA to the
south,
2. Additionally, there may be some additional concerns if the parcels are already in the
DDA boundaries, the DDA has first right of refusal to the tax increment. This means
(best case scenario) the URA and DDA enter into an Inter -governmental agreement
regarding the TIF and work out a share back option. (This is not impossible but
adds time to the overall project expansion.) We are not looking to extend the URA
to the south.
CURRENT PLANNING
Contact Info: Shelby Sommer, 416-2138, ssommer(a_fcgov.com
1. For a step-by-step guide to the Development Review process, please visit the
Development Review Guide online at: http://fcgov.com/drq. No comment needed.
2. You will need to submit a Project Development Plan (PDP) for the City to review.
This PDP will be evaluated through the Development Review Process. City of Fort
Collins Departments along with other external agencies will have the opportunity to
review and comment on your Project Development Plan. Application forms and PDP
13
F°rof
trins
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW
STAFF COMMENTS
submittal requirement checklists can be found online at
http://fcgov.com/currentplanning/submittals.php. No comment needed.
3. A decision (approval, approval with conditions or denial) will be made by the City's
Administrative Hearing Officer a Public Hearing. If your Project Development Plan
is approved at the Public Hearing, you will be required to submit Final Plans for
review which will ultimately be recorded. No comment needed.
4. Please be aware that you will owe both the Transportation Development Review Fee
(TDRF) and the Development Review Fee with your PDP application submittal. The
Development Review Fee Schedule online at
http://fcgov.com/currentplanning/submittals.php. Final Development Review and
Transportation Development Review Fees will be due when you submit your Final
Plans after the public hearing. Understood, fees are included with this submittal.
5. Your Project Development Plan will be evaluated per the standards set forth in the
Land Use Code (LUC) and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(LCUASS). Understood and our plans and designs do comply.
6. The entire Fort Collins Land Use Code is available for your review on the web at
http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm. No comment needed.
7. This development proposal is subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins
Land Use Code, specifically, but not limited to:
• Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection
• Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking
• Division 3.5 — Building Standards (including project compatibility, building
height review and commercial building standards)
• Division 3.3 - Engineering Standards
• Division 4.19 — Community Commercial North College District
• Division 4.20 — Community Commercial Poudre River District
Understood, our submittal complies or we have specifically requested variances for any
items that do not comply.
8. A neighborhood meeting is typically not required for Type 1 (Administrative)
proposals. However, because of the scale of this project, and the fact that several
components of the proposal may go before the Planning and Zoning Board and/or
City Council, a neighborhood meeting should be held early in the development
process. Please contact me and I will coordinate a meeting date and location. You
will need to provide my office with a list of Affected Property Owner (APO) labels for
the meeting notification letters. Neighborhood meeting was held on November 6,
2008.
14
ENGINEERING
171 North College Ave ■ Fort Collins, CO 805259 ■ 970.797.2906 ■ fax 970.407.9244
August 12, 2009
Mr. Marc Virata, P.E.
City of Fort Collins, Engineering Department
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: RM12 at Inverness Innovation Park - Variance Requests
Dear Mr. Virata,
The purpose of this letter to request engineering variances for several engineering design
standards, in accordance with section 1.9.4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS). We appreciate the discussions with you and other City staff
concerning this project. Your feedback has been very valuable in the creation of a viable site
plan which also meets the intent of the standards. In general, the variances related to
horizontal geometry along the proposed improvements for East Vine Drive:
Horizontal Geometry - Minimum Tangent, Minimum Radius and Access Spacing
LCUASS Chapter 7 Table 7-3 Technical Design Criteria
The proposed tangent length between curves (station 18+36.22 to 19+69.79) is 133.57'.
The minimum required tangent length between horizontal curves is 200'.
The proposed radii for two curves along East Vine are 830'. The minimum required
centerline radius is 1075'.
Proposed access spacing is approximately 335' from Redwood drive, where 460' is
required. Additionally, private driveway accesses are proposed with a spacing of 310',
where 460i is required. Generally, all these are required due to constraints created by
the existing topography along Ease Vine Drive. More specifically:
■ The proposed curves match closely with the existing curves in this area. ROW
constraints on adjacent properties do no allow for extensive realignment of the
existing street.
■ Transitions to existing pavement at either ends of the improvements require a
close match to existing horizontal and vertical geometry.
■ Traffic volumes along East Vine are low for a minor arterial.
■ With the anticipated relocation of Vine Drive to the north, this road will see
significantly less traffic than what occurs today, even with the proposed uses for
this development.
■ With the anticipated relocation of Vine Drive Jerome and Redwood Drives will
be logical N/S routes for the anticipated development in Old Town North to the
north. That will further reduce traffic in this portion of Vine Drive adding to the
decreased function and use of this roadway.
Minimum Off Street Parking Setback
LCUASS Chanter 19 Figure 19-6 Minimum Off Street Parking Setback Distance
The minimum required setback for private off street parking off an arterial is 75'. The
proposed distance is 50'. This requirement is unnecessarily restrictive for this site plan
for several reasons:
■ The proposed traffic volumes for the site are relatively low, as documented in the
traffic analysis prepared by ELB Engineering.
■ The proposed plan allows for enough room for two stacked vehicles. With one
vehicle backing out of the parking space, there is room for one vehicle to stack
and still be totally outside the adjacent street.
■ The proposed requirement impacts the number of parking spaces available for
the project site. A reduced number of spaces would likely result in more parking
movements and queuing as frustrated drivers jockey for limited parking spaces.
■ The proposed plan includes two access driveways off East Vine, both of which are
full movement. This will distribute the trips between two access points.
■ The proposed development will highlight and emphasis alternative transportation
modes. In addition, the occupants will be highly "green" motivated. The vehicles
most likely being used to access this facility will be compact and hybrid vehicles.
The size of these vehicles requires less space to maneuver thereby needing less
stacking space and a smaller setback than typically required.
It should also be noted that there has been some discussion of downgrading this section of
East Vine to a collector. Although that change is not currently proposed, it is being
considered in the Mountain Vista area plan, and is recommended by the project traffic
engineer. All the above instances meet collector standards, with the sole exception of the
tangent length.
Based on the limitations of the existing site, the constraints along Ease Vine Drive, the
mitigating factors, and the traffic analysis, we believe these variances are reasonable and
appropriate in this case.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Bob Gowing, P.E.
[9/21/09] The plat now no longer shows these areas to be dedicated with the plat and
references that they are by separate document. We will need to keep up with the processing of
the easements to ensure that they are processed in time to record and then have the reception
numbers shown on the plat as a result. As a backup, I would recommend that these various
easements and rights -of -way are "to be recorded by separate document" so as to not
necessarily be recorded prior to the plat being recorded given the tight schedule for the project.
We will still need the signed offsite easements/rights-of-way in hand before the plat can be
recorded, but then we're not holding up the plat from recording should the easement recordation
process when left with the City become problematic from a timing standpoint..
Notes concerning offsite easements have been modified to eliminate the line for a reception
number so that the easements can be recorded either before or after the plat is recorded.
[8/26/09] The plat shows areas outside of the platted property being legally described (such as
the drainage easement for the pond on the south side of Vine and the portion of the access,
utility and drainage easement to the east of Lot 1). I've verified with the City Surveyor that the
plat cannot be the document that establishes these areas because they're outside of the platted
boundary. Either these areas need to be conveyed by separate document to the City, or the
platted boundary needs to be expanded to include these areas. One consideration in this regard
between the two options, may be the cost differential between the increased TDR fee of an
expanded plat boundary against the TDR fee to dedicate by separate document.
Easements will be recorded by separate documents.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 108 Created: 9/23/2009
[9/23/09] Please look to indicating on the site plan that the Vine Drive will be fully built along the
property only and that transitions to existing pavement will need to be done east and west of the
site.
-taper of interim condition is noted and indicated, due to scale of drawing note refers to civil
drawings for this information where it is clearly noted and indicated.
Topic: Utility Plans
Number: 76 Created: 8/26/2009
[9/22/09] The interim condition is now easier to follow though the existing right-of-way east and
west of the site is not shown. It should be verified if the roadwork being done (such as the
pavement transitioning back to existing is fully within right-of-way or is additional right-of-way
needed).
Taper Transitions are into existing edge of asphalt. Additional right-of-way has been provided
along the frontage of the RM11 site and will be dedicated with the plat.
[8/26/09] The interim condition is very difficult to follow and review over the contours of the
grading plan. Please prepare a horizontal control plan to provide more clarity on the interim
condition.
A horizontal control plan will be added to provide more clarity, but has not been added at this
time.
Number: 79 Created: 8/26/2009
[9/22/09] The property lines (when going off the site) are not shown on all sheets.
Existing topographic features and linework have been shown and added to the sheets.
[8/26/09] Please ensure the property line boundary is shown on all sheets of the construction
plan set. Sheet 4 of the plan set does not indicate property line boundaries to verify if all the
Page 4
grading can be contained on -site. It does appear that offsite grading will be needed at least to
the east.
This has been added to the sheets.
Number: 80 Created: 8/26/2009
[9/22/09] At time of final the patching limits will need to be expanded in accordance with our
patching requirements. There will also need to be enough information (spot elevations/cross
sections to show that the interim improvements will work properly in the interim condition and
that these improvements along the frontage will match the ultimate condition.
Notes are shown on the grading plan to specify patching requirements. Elevations and cross -
slopes will be shown on the grading plan or road sheets in the next submittal.
(8/26/09] The grading plan appears to show curb and gutter on both sides of Vine Drive, which
has my assuming that both sides of the street along the development's property frontage is to
be built at this time, however interim tapers are only shown on the north side. Is the curb and
gutter (and driveway) on the south side not being proposed at this time and the grading plan
combines showing interim and ultimate conditions? Again an interim horizontal control plan
would be beneficial. Please note that the frontage improvements abutting the infiltration pond
will need to be satisfied with this development.
An interim road sheet has been added to provide clear information for final design.
Number: 82 Created: 8/26/2009
[9/22/09] At time of final please ensure the information referenced in the response letter is
included in the drawings.
Some items have not been addressed this time, but all items will be addressed in the next
submittal.
[8/26/09] The ultimate design should call out what the limits of the design are tying into and
show such on the drawings. Does the terminus of the offsite design to the west tie into designs
done with Old Town North? Does the terminus of the offsite design to the east need to show a
transition to tie into existing edge of pavement?
Apex will work directly with Engineering to address this issue.
Number: 95 Created: 8/28/2009
[9/22/09] The revised information displayed is far more readable and appreciated. As more
information is displayed with the final submittal, it is hoped that the information remains clear.
[8/28/09] On the construction drawings, please further refine the display of information to be
more readable (and thereby more scannable). There is information such as elevation numbers
on the grading plan that cannot be easily read and won't scan (in the hatched spillway area).
Numbers, text, and data need to not have any overlapping shading, lines, etc.
This has been done.
Number: 104 Created: 9/22/2009
[9/22/09] Sheets 4 and 5 need to have the existing contours in a lineweight that will be more
visible for scanning purposes. It appears that the existing countour lineweight on Sheet 6 shows
this better.
This has been done.
Number: 112 Created: 9/24/2009
[9/24/09] I'm assuming the modified inlet design discussed prior to submittal is still being looked
at. Please look at providing some sort of written information/variance request (perhaps from the
Page 5
geotech engineer) along with a design detail of the proposed inlet design in order to have this
discussion. Apex will address this concern with Engineering.
Number: 120 Created: 9/25/2009
[9/25/09] The eastbound bikelane along Vine shown offsite approaching Linden should be
detached from the curb (exchanged in order with the turn lane).
This has been changed.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 121 Created: 9/28/2009
Please ensure that the site/utility/etcetera plans reflect the Emergency Access Easement that's
shown on the plat.
The emergency access easement has been shown throughout the set.
-site plan Emergency Access Easement is per CivillP/at
Number: 122 Created: 9/28/2009
Show the location that we discussed for the remote FDC and new fire hydrant The remote FDC
should be located such that supplying the fire sprinklers will not cut off emergency vehicle
access to the parking lot west drive cut; putting the hydrant and FDC where we discussed would
meet that need. Both devices should be about 5 feet (minimum 3 feet is IFC requirement) away
from the curb face, to prevent vehicle damage. Also, the only vegetation allowed within 3 feet of
the FDC/hydrant is ground cover or short plants that will not overgrow the devices over time. I'm
concerned that the three rabbitbrush plants will eventually grow closer than 3 feet to the
hydrant/FDC.
Two FDC locations have been added, one for each building. The utility plan shows and calls
out the two locations. A detail will need to be added to the set showing the FDC installation
details.
-site plan includes note to refer to Civil Drawings for location of FDC's and hydrant, as soon as
these locations are approved we will include in our site plan for final mylars.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 101 Created: 9/22/2009
[9/22/09] Please change the project title on both landscape plan sheets to reflect the
subdivision plat title.
Complete.
Number: 102 Created: 9/22/2009
[9/22/09] Sheet 2 of the landscape plans references the wrong railroad.
This has been corrected.
Topic: Plat
Number: 99 Created: 9/22/2009
[9/22/09] The boundary & legal close.
Number: 103
Created: 9/22/2009
Page 6
[9/22/09] Please provide reception numbers for easements & ROW prior to filing the plat.
This will be done.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 65 Created: 8/26/2009
[9/22/09] There are still some minor line over text issues.
[8/26/09] Line over text issues on the site plan.
-addressed as best as possible
Number: 98 Created: 9/22/2009
(9/22/091 The legal description on both site plan sheets is incomplete. Only part of the
description of the property was provided.
-addressed, updated per civil engineer.
Number: 100 Created: 9/22/2009
[9/22/09] Please change the project title on both site plan sheets to reflect the subdivision plat
title.
-addressed
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 113 Created: 9/25/2009
[9/25/09] 1. Thank you for providing the additional elevation of the buildings to protect from
flood damage.
2. Landscape Plan - We would suggest removing the architectural screen wall due to the
flooding issues. With additional flood water coming through this area, a wall can block the flows
and cause increased flood damages.
3. Details to consider for the future, when the entire site mapped in the floodplain:
- No overnight parking or outdoor storage of materials is allowed.
- Dumpsters or other floatable materials need to be chained or bolted down.
We recommend incorporating these requirements now if possible. Please include notes and
details on plans as applicable. These notes can be added to the civil plans, though it seems it
would be better served in the development agreement language. Are there any specific sheets
the City wants to have these notes added to?
4. The intent of our previous comment about Vine Drive was to not have Vine Drive raised, but
rather to keep it at -grade, so as to not cause a rise in the flood elevation.
Grading along Vine Drive is close to minimum grades allowed, in accordance with LCUASS.
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 114 Created: 9/25/2009
[9/25/09] The letter of intent for the natural area use of the 2x's detention requirement has been
received. Stormwater is ready for a hearing.
Number: 115 Created: 9/25/2009
[9/25/09] At final compliance, the storm sewer placement will need to be coordinated to provide
a suitable solution.
Acknowledged.
Page 7
Number: 116 Created: 9/25/2009
[9/25/09] Additional comments may follow during final compliance.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 58 Created: 8/25/2009
[9/23/09] Label curb stops.
[8/25/09] Show the curb stop and meter pit on the water service to the west building.
This has been shown.
Number: 59 Created: 8/25/2009
[9/23/09] (Still missing on Storm line A)
[8/25/09] Show the water main and sanitary sewer crossings in the storm sewer profiles. Install
steel casings on the water/sewer lines when below pipelines which are 24-inches or greater
diameter.
The water and sewer mains in Vine Drive are existing, so installing casings doesn't appear to be
possible. The storm sewer pipes crossing Vine Drive are 24" RCP, so concrete encasements
can be provided during construction, if necessary. All known crossings have been shown.
Number: 105 Created: 9/23/2009
[9/23/09] Revise notes and labels on Utility Plan (Sheet 3) as noted on the redlined plans.
This has been completed.
Number: 106 Created: 9/23/2009
[9/23/09] Identify any water line lowerings on the plans and provide a detail showing elevations,
separation distances, etc.
Because many of the potholed locations contained cobble, little information on the location of
underground utilities was obtained. Apex has provided notes on the utility plan indicating that if
a lowering is found to be needed, the contractor shall contact the engineer and lowering details
will be provided. Apex has added the standard ELCO and City of Fort Collins lowering details to
the plan set.
Number: 107 Created: 9/23/2009
[9/23/09] See redlined plans for other comments.
Acknowledged and completed.
Department: Zoning
Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Peter,
It appears that you did not receive the correct package of materials since we made all the
updates mentioned below. You will see in this submittal that the items mentioned below
have been addressed.
Topic: Zoning
Number: 2 Created: 8/19/2009
[9/16/09] 1 don't see the dimensions for Building 2 or for the car park structure.
Page 8