The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFOSSIL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK - PDP - 44-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)J ' Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please contact me at 221-6341 if you have questions or concerns related to these comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary, to discuss these comments. Sincerely, 4tevXeOIP� Project Planner xc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Utility Poudre Fire Authority Transportation Planning Traffic Operations Natural Resources Parks Planning J-R Engineering Project File #44-00 15. Is the 8' wide pathway in the park wide enough to accommodate Poudre Fire Authority service vehicles? 16. The pedestrian connections through the parking lots should be continuous and direct. Stormwater Utility (Wes Lamargue) 17. Enlarge the drainage plan to 1" = 50' for legibility reasons. 18. The utility plans are not showing curb cuts for the parking lots. 19. More work is needed on the drainage report and plans. The hydrologic model does not include off -site drainage. 20. This development proposal is not ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. Natural Resources (Doug Moore) 21. He is still checking to determine if the plan complies with Section 3.4.1(E)(3) of the LUC pertaining to the 80% average setback from the required natural area buffer. 22. Wetland mitigation is required. This completes the comments that have been received to date. Additional comments may be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90-day plan revision resubmittal time -frame (from the applicant to the City) mandated by the City. The 90-day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (May 24, 2001) prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case, a resubmittal must be made no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 22, 2001. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to a public hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer (or the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision if any modifications of standards are necessary). Y b. The Final Landscape Plan should show the lower level plantings (shrubs, flowers, ornamental grasses, ground covers, etc.), especially where they are critical to screening of areas such as parking lots. C. Adequate bicycle racks in appropriate locations do not appear to be shown on the Site Plans. d. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Steve, at 221-6341, if you have questions about these comments. 9. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 10. A copy of the comments received from Wes Lamarque of the Stormwater Utility is. attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Wes, at 221-6681, if you have questions about his comments. 11. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort indicated that the proposed transit stop location as shown on the Site Plan, being central to the park, is good. Transit service is planned according to the City's 2020 Transit Plan (in the City Structure Plan). 12. AT&T Broadband (cable TV) indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review meeting on May 16, 2001: Transportation Planning (Tom Reiff) 13. The pedestrian crossing on Lemay Avenue needs a pedestrian signal. 14. Adequate design for the pedestrian underpass at Lemay Avenue needs to be provided. C. Coordinate with the Poudre Fire Authority to ensure that the emergency access path is built to accommodate their support equipment. Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. A fire lane is required. It shall be visible by painting and signage and shall remain unobstructed. b. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved roadway. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a hydrant. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Please contact Michael, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Pete Wray of the Advance Planning Department indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 7. Comments received from Eric Bracke of the Traffic. Operations Department are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about his comments. 8. Steve Olt of the Current Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Site lighting: The proposed Types "A" and "B" are specific to the ballfields and tennis courts (respectively) that require higher levels of lighting with a truer rendition. However, why do Types "C" and "D" have to be Metal Halide sources? The lower wattages are fine but, as stated in Section 3.2.4(D)(5) of the Land Use Code (LUC), a High Pressure Sodium light source can provide adequate illumination with low contrast and brightness and is a permitted light source (as well as being the City's recommended light source for areas such as parking lots and pedestrian ways). Metal Halide general gives a brighter, whiter light. Is this too much? Commui , Planning and Environmental F Current Planning City of Fort Collins May 24, 2001 BHA Design c/o Roger Sherman 4803 Innovation Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Roger, aces Staff has reviewed your revision documentation for the Fossil Creek Community Park - Project Development Plan (PDP) that was submitted to the City on April 25, 2 00 1, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company (Excel Energies) stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 2. A copy of the comments received from Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions about her comments. (Please understand that several comments are coming from a Fort Collins resident/user's position and are more of a suggestive nature.) 3. A copy of a comment letter received from Terry Farrill of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Terry at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have questions about his comments. 4. Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Walkways through the parking lots should be aligned to directly cross the drive aisles. b. Design of the Fossil Creek trail underpass should be designed with the overall Site Plan. 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020