HomeMy WebLinkAboutCENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-07-26PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: November 16, 2000
PROJECT: #53-85AV C.A.T. 22nd
PLANNER: Steve Olt
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
DEPT: ENGINEERING
Community Horticultural Ctr.
All comments must be received by: December 13, 2000
❑ No Problems
0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
• In general the submittal was difficult to read and did not contain information needed for a complete
review. Please better distinguish between existing and proposed grading, provide a key indicating
different symbols used on the plan set, and label aspects/dimensions of the site. Additional
comments may be made with further information. r
• The location of the driveway out to Centre Avenue appears to not line-up well with the driveway
across the street and will cause conflicting left turn movements off of Centre Avenue into both sites.
Because of the reversible center lane from a safety standpoint, the driveways should be aligned so as
to not offset. The design might be aided by the removal of the median on the driveway and matching
the width with the driveway across the street. In accordance with See 24-76(2)a of the City Code, the i
maximum width of a driveway is 35'. This driveway is shown as 40' wide. /
• The driveway out to Rolland Moore Drive needs to be constructed at a right angle to the curbline in
accordance with Sec 24-76(1)b of the City Code. The angle of intersection appears to be 75°.
• In looking at the illustrative master plan sketch it shows delineated left turn lanes on Centre Ave ue
for the access into this site and the NRCC across the street, which might in theory alleviate this. Is
this being proposed?. The City would most likely not be in favor of this, as it would shorten up the
recommended stacking lane length for the Centre Avenue / Rolland Moore Drive intersection should
delineated left turn lanes be added at this time or the future.
• The TIS recommends adding delineated left turn lanes at the Centre Avenue / Rolland Moore Drive
intersection, is that being added at this time? The utility plan does not indicate this.
• The use of radius style driveways connecting to a public street requires a modification to the Land
Use Code as a driveway cut is required (New Driveway Approach) per 3.6.2.(L)(2)(e).
• The grading plan should be included with the utility plan and not as a part of the site plan.
• The TIS shows that on -street parking "may be required" along Rolland Moore Drive. Is an adequate
amount of on -site parking spaces being provided, as Rolland Moore Drive is currently being shown
as a collector without parking?
Date: December 14, 2000 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
10 Plat 2 Site 21 Utility 21 Landscape 0 Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -Si TRMTT MVT ARc
51. Approval from the Sherwood Lateral Ditch Company must be included on
the utility plans.
Traffic Operations (Ward Stanford)
52. Expand and clean up the striping plan.
Natural Resources (Doug Moore)
53. The wetland delineation should be shown on the plans.
54. A mitigation plan for the wetland is required.
55. The square footage of the wetland must be shown on the Site Plan.
56. There could be a possible City logo violation with the plans.
57. The Landscape Plan (Illustrative Master Plan) is not adequate. As
submitted, it is not complete.
58. On the subdivision plat, the reference(s) to Boulder County should be
changed to Larimer County.
59. Staff is recommending that the applicant and the City meet to discuss
the development plans.
Planning
60. The Site Plan is lacking a lot of information (see attachment from the
City's Development Manual).
61. The Landscape Plan is lacking a lot of information (see attachment from
the City's Development Manual).
62. Copies of typically submitted Site and Landscape Plans (with the
information normally provided with a Project Development Plan
submittal) are available upon request.
63. Relating to the required "build -to" line set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2) of
the Land Use Code, to avoid having to request a modification of the
standard the applicant must demonstrate how one of the exceptions in
Section 3.5.3(13)(2)(d) apply. In this case, it is probably would be
exception It 1.
64. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to
the applicant.
This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments could be
forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing
agencies.
Under the new 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 (December 20, 2000) 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, March 20, 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.
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,
Steve Olt
Project Planner
xc: Engineering
Zoning
Stormwater Utility
Light 8s Power
Poudre Fire Authority
Transportation Planning
Traffic Operations
Natural Resources
Advance Planning
EDAW, Inc:.
POUPPIRT Architects
Sear -Brown
Project File: #53-85AV
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: April. 20, 2001 DEPT: ENGINEERING
PROJECT: #53-85AV C.A.T. 22" d, Community Horticultural Ctlr,
PLANNER: ;Steve Olt
ENGINEER: Marc Virata
All comments must be received by: May 16, 2001
❑ No Problems
2 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
General Comments:
l . In terms of a submittal, typically the City requires separate site and landscape plans for the City
Planner to process and approve, these documents do not need a grading plan. The utility plan set
should encompass the utility plan.
2. The site and landscape plans show a connection being made out to Roland Moore Drive for what I
understand is for maintenance vehicles. However, it appears on the utility plan that the second
entrance off of Roland Moore Drive is not planned for presently and a driveway cut is being created
for future access only with no internal improvements. Because no future grading or detail of this area
is shown on the utility plan, the site and hindscape plans should show this area as future
improvements and that a minor amendment is required for this. It is suggested that the future grading
and improvements be shown on the utility plans at this time in order to not need a revision or
suhsequent submittal to the utility plans for the minor amendment approval. In addition, it Might be
of henetit to show the grading at this time as Engineering requires minimal or no drainage from the
private drive going; over the sidewalk out to the public street. Determining future grading now might
help ensure that the design will be able to minimize or eliminate flows from the sidewalk out to the
public street in accordance with City Engineering criteria.
3. The site plan shows a sidewalk along the south part of the site (as well as perhaps an additional
sidewalk offsite?) These sidewalks are not shown on the utility plans.
4. Coordinate between site, landscape and utility plans.
Utility Plan Comments
I . The General Notes has since been revised. Replace the general notes on the utility plan cover sheet
with the attached. This is also available in electronic format.
2. The cover sheet needs typical title block, revision block, drawing title and sheet number information
that is included on subsequent sheets.
3. Offsite grading, a temporary turnaround and perhaps drainage easements are required based on the
Date: September 13, 2()01 Signature:
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS
0 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 0 Landscape ❑ Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS
information on the grading plan. Letters of intent by the offsite property owner(s) are required prior
to hearing for the project. The signed easements are required after hearing with the final compliance
submittal.
4. Where is the street striping plan for Centre Avenue and the Centre Avenue/Roland Moore Drive
intersection'?
5. The design of Roland Moore Drive does not meet horizontal layout criteria. A street centerline radius
ol' 551' is proposed and 610' is required (600' under the recently adopted Larimer County Urban
Arca Street Standards). In addition a tangent length of 70'+ is shown out to the intersection of Centre
Avenue. A minimum of 150' in tangent length is required. If this alignment is fixed because of
commitments from neighboring properties, a variance request is at least required to justify the design.
6. The vertical curve lengths are too short for the crest curves. K values of 60 are required.
7. Provide the future potential alignment of Roland Moore Drive into the plan set that JR Engineering
had provided separately. This can be labeled as for reference only.
8. The irrigation drawings don't appear to be needed in the plan set, unless required by
Water/Wastewater.
9. High points on the parking lot(s) should be shown to distinguish where grade breaks occur and
illustrate the amount of drainage being directed across a public sidewalk.
10. Provide a detail of the driveway approaches out to Centre Avenue and Roland Moore Drive, the
`'New Driveway Approach" detail in the City Engineering standards book would appear to be
appropriate.
11. Ensure that the City Approval Block on all sheets are the same as the cover sheet (replace Director of
Engineering with City Engineer, add Natural Resources, etc.)
Plat Comments
I . The first sheet of the plat was not apparently included in the submittal. Note that the certificate of
dedication and notice of other documents provisions were recently updated and attached.
2. It may he of benefit that areas noted on the plat as emergency access easement are also noted as an
access easement (such as access and emergency access easement); the present designation implies
that the easement is exclusive to only emergency services and other uses such as general access are
not allowed.
3. (As no sheet I for the plat was received, it is not known whether this previous comment was
addressed.) The plat appears to be platting land that was/is a part of the Wind Trail Townhomes
P.U.D. First Replat Tract C. Please provide evidence that this plat has the ability to plat this area of
land. Otherwise, it appears that an authorized representative(s) of Wind Trail Townhomes would
have to be signatories to the plat.
4. It doesn't appear pedestrian access easements were dedicated for the trail system.
5. As no sheet 1 was received to verify, ensure that the ditch company is a signatory on the plat.
Site and Landscape Plans:
I . Coordinate the design with the utility plans to ensure that all improvements proposed are consistent
between plans.
2. The parking lot area/maintenance area for the area that takes vehicular access to Roland Moore Drive
needs to he indicated as future phasing as it is not shown on the utility plan set. This should be
relooked at by the City as a minor amendment process.
(Additional comments may he made with the next submittal.)
Development Review Comments — Page 2
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: April 20, 2001 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #53-85AV CAT 22nd Filing, Community
Horticulture Center - PDP — Type I (LUC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning
no later than the staff review meeting:
May 16, 2001
F-1 No Comment
F-1 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
**PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE**
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Dat'd3t Site Drainage Report Signatuf&cr
Utility Redline Utility Landscape ---a
City of Fort Collins
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
May 25, 2001
City of Fort Collins/Operations Services
c/o Steve Seefeld
117 North Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580
Dear Steve,
Staff has reviewed your revisions documentation for the Community
Horticulture Center (C.A.T. 22nd Filing) - Project Development Plan (PDP)
that was submitted tQ the City on April 20, 2001, and would like to offer the
following comments:
1. Len Hilder•brand of Public Service Company (Excel Energies) stated
that any relocation of existing gas lines will be at the cost of the
developer. Replacement of culverts should include sleeving for existing or
new gas rnains.
2. Mike Spur•gin of the Post Office stated that they have no concerns or
comments regarding this development proposal.
3. Doug Moore of the City's Natural Resources Department indicated that
Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) is not a native plant species
to Fort Collins. The Fort Collins LUC requires Fort Collins native plant
species to be planted in natural area buffers, as set forth in Section
3.4.1(E)(2)(b). Please contact Doug, at 224-6143, if you have questions
about his comments.
4. Peter Barnes of the Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a. Label ramps at the handicapped parking areas.
b. This site is within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. If
the developer wants wall signs they'll have to show the wall sign
locations (but not content or size). This is a repeat comment.
'81 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
C. No new building elevations drawings were submitted with the
revisions. The proposed wall signage locations with the previous
submittal may not comply with the City's Sign Code. This is a
repeat comment.
d. The proposed sign on Sheet SDI 0 1 does not comply with the City's
Sign Code. See Section 3.8.7 of the Land Use Code (LUC).
e. The building envelopes for all buildings (including accessory
buildings like the shelter, pump house, etc.) need to be shown and
dimensioned on the Site Plan. The envelopes must be tied to the
nearest property line, for field location purposes. This is a repeat
comment.
f. The maximum fence height along Centre Avenue is limited to 4' for
any portion of the fence that is closer than the building setback
from the street. This is set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the LUC.
g. Add the standard notes to the Landscape Plan regarding
Landscape Materials, Maintenance, and Replacement, as set forth in
Section 3.2.1(I) of the LUC. This includes the assurance that the
landscaping will be installed and properly maintained, as set forth
in Section 3.2.1(I) (4) . Also, if there are existing trees on this site the
tree protection, replacement, and specifications must be
addressed, as set forth in Sections 3.2.1(F) and (G) of the LUC.
Please contact Peter, at 221-6760, if you have questions about his
comments.
S. Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planning Department offered the
following comments:
a. Continue a concrete sidewalk across drive aisles (see the red -lined
Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant).
b. Please address the bus parking location while kids are attending
their programs.
Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about his
comments.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. A copy of the comment received from Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are
on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please
contact Jeff, at 221-6674, if you have questions about his comments.
9. The Technical Services Department offered the following comments:
a. The subdivision plat matches the legal description and the
subdivision plat closes OK.
b. There are several references to a note on Sheet 1 but there are no
notes on Sheet 1. Should notice be changed to note?
C. Please show recording information for Centre Avenue.
d. The note about the "Sherwood Lateral Easement to be Determined"
is confusing. What is to be determined?
Please contact Technical Services, at 221-6588, if you have questions
about these comments.
10. GayLene Possiter of Transfort indicated that no transit stop location is
shown on the plans. New transit service on Centre Avenue is scheduled
to begin sometime in 2002, upon adoption of the Transfort Strategic
Plan.
11. 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)
12. Where is the student bus parking and waiting going to occur on this site?
13. The cross -walk across Centre Avenue should continue the concrete
paving treatment.
14. Most of Transportation Planning's issues have been addressed and
resolved.
Stormwater Utility (Glen Schlueter)
15. The 500-year floodplain will affect this site.
16. The off -site storm drainage basin must be larger than the applicant is
providing for. This is associated with the realigned ditch.
17. Is the off -site turnaround on a wetland? Has the wetland been mitigated?
18. An off -site drainage easement is needed.
19. No overnight parking can occur on this site. The storm drainage
calculations for the parking lot have not been verified.
20. Most of Sto=water's comments appear to be repeat comments.
Transfort (GayLene Rossiter)
21. They want a transit stop just north or south of the entry into the parking
lot.
Natural Resources (Doug Moore)
22. There may be some wetland issues.
23. The Landscape Plan is showing some non-native plant species is areas
where they should be native.
24. Has the City's "art in public places" program been considered in this
facility?
Plat Comments:
• Add the addition as redlined on the plat for the Notice of Other Documents language.
• The ditch company (for the Sherwood Lateral) will have to be a signatory on the plat as they will
have an exclusive; easement.
• The plat appears to be platting land that was/is a part of the Wind Trail Townhomes P.U.D. First
Replat Tract C. Please provide evidence that this plat has the ability to plat this area of land.
Otherwise, it appears that an authorized representative(s) of Wind Trail Townhomes would have to
be signatories to the plat.
• PFA has commented that a fire lane is required. An emergency access easement needs to be
delineated internally onsite.
• Provide easements onsite, including pedestrian access easements for the trail system.
• Replace County of Boulder with County of Larimer under the Owner's Block.
Site Plan Comments:
• Remove contours from the site plan.
• Please provide more detail on the site plan — label the features and any dimensions on the plan
(sidewalks, trails, gazebos, etc.)
• The site plan shows a sidewalk along the south part of the site (perhaps offsite?) This sidewalk is not
shown on the utility plans.
Utility Plan Comments:
• Please place the attached General Notes on the cover sheet of the plan set. These are the current
updated standard General Notes and should be used on any other project currently under
development review.
• Please ensure that the utility plan approval block, along with the ditch company approval block is on
the lower right corner of all sheets (and add Natural Resources to the approval block?)
• It appears a low spot is being created at the termination of Rolland Moore Drive which would require
offsite drainage easements from the Wind Trail Townhomes P.U.D. in the interim condition with a
temporary turnaround. The ultimate condition with the continuation of Rolland Moore Drive does
not show storm inlets at this low spot, why isn't this being provided?
• Offsite easements are required for the temporary turnaround shown on the utility plan. A letter of
intent from the affected property owner(s) is required prior to a hearing.
• The road design for Rolland Moore Drive does not show the driveway proposed from this site to
Rolland Moore Drive.
• The grading is difficult to read on the on -site plan. Please provide more detail and distinguish
between existing and proposed contours (If the bold lines are proposed, the grading on Rolland
Moore Drive should. be shown as existing.) It is difficult to follow the grading on the plan set.
• How does the design for Rolland Moore Drive tie into previously approved designs for Rolland
Moore Drive further west? An overall plan showing the horizontal alignment of the proposed road
and previously approved designs should be shown on the same plan set to analyze how the two might
connect and meet City design standards.
• Please show spot elevations (including high points) throughout any onsite areas with impervious
surface (i.e. parking areas.) I need to see how drainage occurs in these areas and if drainage from the
private drives cross a public sidewalk.
Development Review Comments — Page 2
Planning
25. On the subdivision plat, There are Notary Public signature blocks that
reference Boulder County. If the City Manager's and CSURF President's
signatures have to be notarized, will a notary from Boulder be coming up
to do this? Should the reference be changed to Larimer County? This is a
repeat comment.
26. Relating to the required "build -to" line set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2) of
the Land Use Code, to avoid having to request a modification of the
standard the applicant must demonstrate how one of the exceptions in
Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(d) apply. In this case, it is Exception #1. However,
there are no sidewalks from the children's plaza and the area is fenced,
prohibiting direct pedestrian access. Should there not be some
pedestrian connectivity?
27. What is the purpose of all the fence surrounding this facility? Is there a
need for security? Can the fence be more decorative?
28. Additional comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to
the applicant.
This concludes the staff comments that have been received. Additional
comments may be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and
outside reviewingagencies.
Under the City's development review process and schedule there is a 90-dap
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 25, 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 Thursday, August 23, 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 if any
modifications of standards are requested) for a decision.
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,
Steve Olt
Project Planner
xc: Engineering
Zoning
Stormwater Utility
Light & Power
Poudre Fire Authority
Transportation Planning
Traffic Operations
Natural Resources
Advance Planning
Parks Planning/Jim Clark
EDAW, Inc.
POUPPIRT Architects
Sear -Brown
Project File #53-85AV
EDAW INC
240 EAST MOUNTAIN AVE
FORT COLLINS COLORADO
80524
TEL 970 484 6073
MEMORANDUM
TO Steve Olt
FROM David Stipe
DATE October 3, 2001
cc Greg Hurst, Marc Virata, Wes Lamarque, Steve Seefeld
SUBJECT Response to written comments concerning utilities for the Fort Collins
Horticulture Center PDP submittal date 4-20-01
FAX 970 484 8518 Gentlemen,
www.edaw.com
The following is a series of written responses to your written comments. Please refer to your
comment sheets for clarification. You will find a written response to each of your comments
on the plans next to the comment.
Response to Wes Lamargue's comments dated May 16. 2001
1. All calculations have been provided for the project in the new Drainage Report.
2. I had a conversation with Kay regarding the need for easements for the water quality ponds
and on site channels, and swales. She indicated that a conversation to place about the need for
easements for site drainage features and that it was decided that easement would not be
required for ponds and on -site swales. Unfortunately, no documentation for this conversation
exists. We have provided easements for all drainage improvements that convey water through
the site.
3. The 100 year floodplain line is now on the plans. This line represents both the floodway
and floodplain.
4. These spillways have been provided.
5. In a 100 year event the entire north side of the site will be under water and the water quality
ponds with 4" outlet pipes will be under water.
6. The profiles have been provided for the 8" and 15" RCP culverts with area inlets.
7. See the drainage report.
8. 'See the plans.
9. See the landscape plans.
Erosion/Sediment Control Comments
1. A legend has been provided on the Erosion Control Plan to clarify area treatments. The area
between Spring Creek and the new ditch will be seeded for over -wintering. The area to the
south will also be seeded.
DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
Comments from Marc Virata Dated April 20, 2001
1. Separate drawing sets have been submitted.
2. We are showing the maintenance area as a future development on the site and landscape
plan to avoid the minor amendment. The grades on the grading plan do reflect the grading for
the maintenance yard improvements.
3. The sidewalk now shows up on all plans.
4. All Drawings are coordinated.
Utility Plan comments.
1. New General Notes are shown.
2. 'Typical title block and signature blocks are provided.
3. Will be provided by the time of the hearing.
4. Discussed Street striping for Centre Avenue with Marc Virata on the 2nd of October, 2001.
He indicated that a street striping plan would only be needed if the project were proposing
medians in the street.
5. A Variance for this is attached to the PDP Submittal.
6. See #5 above
7. Provided on JR drawings.
8. The irrigation drawings are being provided at the request of the city. No details for site
irrigation are needed.
9. Shown on plans.
10. Provided on detail sheets.
11. On all plans including the cover.
Plat comments.
1. Sheet 1 has been included.
2. Noted on plans.
3. Wind Trail Townhomes Owner has signatory on plat.
4. Provided on plat.
5. Provided on sheet one of the plat.
DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
Site and Landscape Plan comments
1. All drawings have been coordinated.
2. Shown on landscape and site plans as future development.
David Stipe,
Project Manager
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
(06001
Project Comments Sheet
iilliiiiiiiiiw V
ifiz%
Cit of Fort Collins Selected Departments
Department: Engineering
Date: October 31, 2001
Project:
C.A.T., 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CTR PDP,#53-85AV
All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the
staff review meeting:
October 24, 2001
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
issue contact: Marc Virata
31
The documents should show the maintenance facility taking access off of Rolland Mo74���
Drive as a future phase of the development. � p qe��,0( vwo & �p
32 T_-,�-- TvAn'1 -
The site plan document again shows a grading plan, (which shows more information than the grading plan on
the utility plan documents.) The grading plan is not needed as part of the site plan documents and should be
removed, however information on this grading plan would be useful as information is missing on the grading
plan in the utility plan documents. Please ensure that information absent from the utility plan documents is
included (spot elevations.) Gj�,pt J1/t OW
33 lY T
Grading contours of the maintenance area is still desired to better determine the amount of
drainage off the private drive entering the public street.34 -4t,dw tom. ovtr (popzA
Please use the General Notes on Sheet 4 of the Utility Plan set for the cover sheet.35
Why is CSURF a signatory to the plat as an owner? Isn't this solely a City owned facility?
This relationship needs to be explained, as it will have implications on the showing of
easements and the type of plat language used on the plat.36—F-� Qom, Ckv-e—1
In general, distinguishing; between existing and proposed contours could dot be interpreted on most sheets.
It appears patching on Centre Avenue needs to be shown for the fire line. Add this note next to any street cuts:
"Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits are to be determined by the City Engineering Inspector at
the time the street cuts are made."
Signature
Date
HECK HERE I YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
PJat C_ Site Drainage Report Other
Utility __--We'dline Utility ✓I✓andscape
Page I
37
Letters of intent are required prior to a hearing for all offsite construction. This appears to be required both to
the south and west of this site. w vzr — 7
38
It is my understanding that the proposed 24" RCP at the end of Rolland Moore Drive on
Sheet 12 is to be installed at this time, please indicate this so as to distinguish this
improvement from the inlets which will be installed in the future.
Oln' —Z>kLe-�" l:�' of 21
39 V`-P-feVt"C& skv�— ce
The City Engineer on 10/31/01 approved the variance requests submitted to
Engineering by JR Engineering. Please consider this as formal notice, however a letter
regarding this variance approval can be issued if desired.
Page 2
Project Comments Sheet
City Fort Collins ofSelected Departments
Department: Engineering
Date: November 1, 2001
Project:
C.A.T., 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CTR PDP,#53-85AV
All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the
staff review meeting:
October 24, 2001
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
31
The documents should show the maintenance facility taking access off of Rolland Moore
Drive as a future phase of the development.
32
The site plan document again shows a grading plan, (which shows more information than the grading plan on
the utility plan documents.) The grading plan is not needed as part of the site plan documents and should be
removed, however information on this grading plan would be useful as information is missing on the grading
plan in the utility plan documents. Please ensure that information absent from the utility plan documents is
included (spot elevations.)
33
Grading contours of the maintenance area is still desired to better determine the amount of
drainage off the private drive entering the public street.34
Please use the General Notes on Sheet 4 of the Utility Plan set for the cover sheet.35
Why is CSURF a signatory to the plat as an owner? Isn't this solely a City owned facility?
This relationship needs to be explained, as it will have implications on the showing of
easements and the type of plat language used on the plat.36
In general, distinguishing between existing and proposed contours could not be interpreted on most sheets.
It appears patching on Centre Avenue needs to be shown for the fire line. Add this note next to any street cuts:
"Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits are to be determined by the City Engineering Inspector at
the time the street cuts am -made."
431
Da e
CHECK HE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
t �Site Drainage Report Other_
Utility _ / Redline Utility Landscape
Page 1
37
Letters of intent are required prior to a hearing for all offsite construction. This appears to be required both to
the south and west of this site.
38
It is my understanding that the proposed 24" RCP at the end of Rolland Moore Drive on
Sheet 12 is to be installed at this time, please indicate this so as to distinguish this
improvement from the inlets which will be installed in the future.
The City Engineer on 10/31/01 approved the variance requests submitted to
Engineering i by JR Engineering. Please consider this as formal notice, however
a letter regarding this variance approval can be issued if desired.
40
A signature block for the Wind Trail Townhomes PUD is not evident on the plat.
Page 2
MEMORANDUM
EDAW INC TO Steve Olt
240 EAST MOIIN[AIN AV[ FR,DM David Stipe
FOR 1 c0[ 1 INS cuiOHADO DATE December 3, 2001
A ° `' �1 4 cc Gre- Hurst, Marc V irata, Wes Lamarque, Steve Seefeld
SUBJECT Response to written comments concerning utilities for the Fort Collins
Horticulture Center PDP submittal date 4-20-01
FAX')10 484 81,18 Gentlemen,
ww w.ednw-con,
The following is a series of written responses to your written comments. Please refer to your
conunent sheets for clarification. You will find a written response to each of your comments
on the plans next to the comment.
Response to Tom Reiff's comments dated October 31, 2001
1. The edge of walk is 3'+ away for the top of the box culvert, no railing will be required.
2. No perimeter fence is being constructed in this phase.
Response to Len Hilderbrand's comments dated October 31, 2001
1. No trees will be planted within 4' of the gas line.
Response to Eni!ineerin2 comments dated October 31, 2001
1. The name of the project is CAT 22nd Filing "Community Horticultural Center". The
drawings have been changed.
2. All off -site easements are being provided by Mike Lang of Sear Brown.
3. The plat language was discussed in a meeting on November 14, 2001. The current plat
reflects the decisions made in this meeting.
4. There is only one grading plan in the current set of drawings.
5. The notes on the utility drawing have been changed according to decisions made in a
meeting held November 14, 2001.
Response to Stormwater comments date October 31, 2001
1. The walks have 3'+ of landscape between them and the headwalls of the culverts, no
handrails should be needed.
2. No fence will be constructed around the site in the phase.
DESIGN. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
Landscape Plan:
• A landscape plan was not received with this submittal, unless the master plan rendering on the cover
sheet of the Preliminary Development Package was intended to be the landscape plan.
(Additional comments may be made with the next submittal.)
Development Review Comments — Page 3
Response to We Lamaraue's comments dated October 24, 2001
I. No structure will he constructed in the flood plain in this phase of construction. The permit
will he kept on file in Jim Clark's office.
2. The tloodway/floodplain line is not required on the plat by the Real Estate Department.
3. The most recent floodplain line was included in the drawing set for the submittal.
4. The dumpster has been anchored to the ground. See detail on sheet I I of the drawings. The
dumpster can't be moved out of the floodplain, it needs to stay in the parking lot for access
reasons.
5. All -benches and hike racks will be anchored into the ground for floodplain and security
reasons. A note has been put on the cover (#26) and this has been spelled out in the Drainage
Report.
6. Done
7. Need to get map from Anderson Consulting Engineers. Will provide by December 5,2001.
8. A note has been placed on the site plan and it is mentioned in the drainage report
9. Base flood elevation line is provided on sheet 4, the section lines are provided on sheets 6 &
Response to Erosion/Sediment Control comments dated October 31, 2001
1. A meeting was held with Bob Zakely to discuss erosion control issues.
20. All of the onsite drainage improvements are represented on the plat either with the note on
sheet one or with a centerline alignment and a defined width.
21. A section for the A I spillway is shown on sheet 7 of the drawing set.
22. All storm pipes requiring rip rap have corresponding calculations on the last page of the
drainage report. The 4" DIP pipes from the two remaining sedimentation ponds are not
intended to carry stonnwater.
23. The contours have been shown.
24. All utilities have been shown on the landscape plans.
25. Provided on sheet 10.
26. Rip rap calcs are on the last page of drainage report.
Response to Marc Virata's comments dated October 24, 2001
31. Show on all plans.
DESIGN_ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
32, The grading plan in the site plan documents has been incorporated into the utility
drawings.
33. Spots for the maintenance area appear on the grading plans.
34. CSURF is a signatory on the plans because Roland Moore Drive is being partially built on
their property.
35. Existing contours show up as dashed where possible. The hale information provided by
the city contains some line which we can not manipulate.
36. Limits of street repair note appears on sheet 5.
37. Letters of intent will be provide for the project through Steve Seefeld's office.
38. Noted on sheet 13.
Response to Jeff Hills comments dated October 24, 2001
1 1. No permanent structures are being shown in any easement.
12. All utilities are shown on the landscape plan and the trees have been moved to the
distances from the lines required.
13. All profiles are shown on sheet 10.
14. The word "note" is being changed to notice to refer to the notice on the first sheet of the
plat.
15. Abandonment procedures are spelled out in the notes on sheet 5.
16. All fittings have been called out.
17. Minimum cover is maintained over all underground utilities.
18. On Sheet 5.
l,et
Project Manager
DFSIGN. PI. ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
00/33/2002 14:55 9702216534 FACILITIES
6 AdIft �a�U
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Citv of fort Collins
City of Fort Collins,
c/o Jim Clark
281 N College Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80524
PAGE 04
Date: 1 /412002
Staff has reviewed your submittal for C.A.T., 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY
HORTICULTURE CTR PDP,#53-85AV, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES.,
Department: Current Planning
issue Contact: Steve Olt
27
Tom Reiff of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following
comments:
1. Provide a detailed design of the culvert and sidewalk to determine if a
handrail is necessary and, if so, where it would be placed.
2. Provide a detailed drawing of the proposed perimeter fence.
28
Len Hilderbrand of Excel Energy (Public Service) offered the following comments:
1. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines.
2. The same comments apply as stated on 513/01 (copy attached).
29
The following comments were expressed at staff review on 10/24101:
Engineering
1. What is the official name of this project, C.A.T. 22nd or Community
Horticulture: Center? The subdivision plat should be the Centre for Advanced
Technology 22nd Filing, maybe with Community Horticulture Center below.
The development plans should reflect both names, also. -- -
2_ The City is still waiting for the necessary off -site easements_ At least a lettef
of intent from each affected property must be received in time to review prior
to public hearing.
Page 1
00113/2002 14:55 9702216534 FACILITIES PAGE 05
3. There is some plat language that may need to be changed.
4. The grading detail on the utility plans is not very detailed. Why are there 2
grading plans?
5. There are some notes on the utility plans that are not correct_
Stormwater
1. The line weights and types are hard to read.
Transportation Plannin
The culvert detail needs more work. Handrails may be needed.
2. What does the fence surrounding the site look like? A detail is needed.
30
it is possible to now schedule an administrative public hearing for the project. The
date and time is being worked out.
Department: Engineering
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
31
The documents should show the maintenance facility taking access off of Rolland
Moore Drive as a lfuture phase of the development.
32
The site plan document again shows a grading plan, (which shows more information
than the grading plan on the utility plan documents.) The grading plan is not needed
as part of the site plan documents and should be removed, however information on
this grading plan would be useful as information is missing on the grading plan in the
utility plan documents. Please ensure that information absent from the utility plan
documents is included (spot elevations.)
33
Grading contours of the maintenance area is still desired to better determine
the amount of drainage off the private drive entering the public street.
34
Please use the General Notes on Sheet 4 of the Utility Plan set for the cover
sheet.
Page 2
08/13/2002 14:55 9702216534 FACILITIES PAGE 06
35
Why is CSURF a signatory to the plat as an owner? Isn't this solely a City
owned facility? 'This relationship needs to be explained, as it will have
implications on the showing of easements and the type of plat language used
on the plat.
36
In general, distinguishing between existing and proposed contours could not be
interpreted on most sheets.
It appears patching on Centre Avenue needs to be shown for the fire line. Add this
note next to any street cuts: "Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits are
to be determined by the City Engineering Inspector at the time the street cuts are
made."
37
Letters of intent are required prior to a hearing for all offsite construction. This
appears to be required both to the south and west of this site.
38
It is my understanding that the proposed 24" RCP at the end of Rolland Moore Drive
on Sheet 12 is to be installed at this time, please indicate this so as to distinguish
this improvement from the inlets which will be installed in the future.
39
The City Engineer on 10/31/01 approved the variance requests submitted to
Engineering by JR. Engineering. Please consider this as formal notice, however a
letter regarding this variance approval can be issued if desired.
40
A signature block for the Wind Trail Townhomes PUD is not evident on the plat.
Department: Natural Resources
5
No outstanding issues -
Issue Contact: Doug Moore
6
Preble's Mouse Survey expire after 1 year-
Preble's Mouse Survey expire after 1 year, Ute ladies' -tresses orchid after three.
The Preble's Mouse Survey on file with the Natural Resources department is dated
September 27, 2000. Contact your consultant on information about updating the
s u rvey. 3. 4.1(0) (2)
Pagc 3
08/13/2002 14:55 9702216534 FACILITIES PAGE 07
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Was Lamarque
Topic: Floodplain
41
1. Previous comment #2 has not been addressed. The hand written note on the
comment said "Steve will contact Marsha". We have attempted to contact both
Steve Olt and Steve Seefeld concerning this issue and have not heard a reply. This
is a requirement that needs to be met.
2....PjeviQvs comment #3 has not been addressed. There is still a difference in the
iloodplain mapping. -.,Please review and revise as necessary.
3. With regard to previous comment #4, who will take responsibility for insuring that
the dumpster is always anchored? Please include this in the text of the drainage
report.
4. The text that was written in the drainage report for Previous Comment #6 is not
clear and does not accurately reflect the reasons the ACE reports were prepared.
Also, the note about a Letter of Map Revision being required after construction was
not in the text as previously requested.
5. Previous comment #7 was not addressed. The copy of the FEMA map with the
site marked was not found in the drainage report. Please make sure this map,
including date is referenced in the text of the drainage report.
6. Previous Comment #9 was not addressed. The floodplain cross -sections and
BFE lines are not shown on the drainage plans. These should be the same cross -
sections and BFF lines shown in the ACE report for the fully developed condition
hydrology.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
12 Show all existing and proposed water/sewer lines on the landscape and site plans.4�Y_C__
Maintain the required landscape/utility separation distance on the landscape plans.
15
Clearly define the abandonment procedure for all water/sewer lines being
abandoned.
16
Call out all fittings, thrust blocks and valves on all water lines on the overall utility
plans. �)
17 Q�
Maintain the required cover over all water and sewer lines.
Page 4
00/13/2002 14:55 9702216534 FACILITIES PAGE 00
Topic: General
42
Coordinate site plans with the utility plans to reflect the same information. \J I
43
-73Maintain 5 feet of separation between fire hydrants and all permanent
structures (i.e. fences, retaining walls, trash enclosures, etc.). j�-
44 �1
List all inverts into and out of sanitary sewer manholes. Maintain a minimum
of 4 feet of cover over all existing and proposed sanitary sewer line",._Cleady--�--
define any and all adjustments to sanitary sewer manholes rims. -'List existing
and proposed rinn elevations for those manholes which must be adjusted, on
the overall utility plans. ,
45
Will a conflict be created between the existing storm sewer located in Centre
Avenue and the proposed 6-inch water main. Provide invert and top of pipe
elevations for tho existing storm sewer at the water main crossing.
f
46 i
Water services must remain the same size from the water main to a point 3 - -
feet downstream of the meter pit. Clearly define this on the overall utility --
plans.
47
Provide profiles for all storm sewers which cross existing/proposed sanitary
sewer and water mains.
48
Provide a manhole adjustment detail on the detail sheet.
49
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
r-
REPEAT COMMENT: building -envelopes for all buildings (including accessory
buildings like the shelter, gazebo, pump house) need to be shown and dimensioned.
They now show what I guess is an envelope, but they haven't labeled it. Also,
they've shown the! distance from buildings to lot lines, but haven't shown dimensions
of the envelopes.
!s ..
Page 5
08/13/2002 14:55 9702216534 FACILITIES PAGE 09
2
REPEAT COMMENT: What's the drive aisle width in the parking lot -
3
Need elevations drawings of shelter, gazebo, etc. If they aren't a part of the
approved plan, then a minor amendment for elevation approval will be required at
time of building permit application.
4
The landscape note regarding installation prior to CO or securing it in the amount of
125% mentions landscape phasing. But it's not clear to me from the landscape plan
that there is more than 1 phase. If there are going to be multiple phases, need to
make sure phase lines are shown on landscape plan.
Be sure and return all of your red -lined 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.
Yours Truly,
STEVE OLT
City Planner
Page 6
Project Comments Sheet
City of Fort Coll ins
Selected Departments
Department: Engineering
Date: January 10, 2002
Project:
C.A.T., 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CTR PDP,#53-85"
(Informal Review)
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
1. Please ensure that the titles of all the documents are consistent ("Horticulture"
or "Horticultural").
2. Because of the co -ownership between the City and CSURF on portions of the
platted land, (Engineering would like to formulate a memorandum of
understanding with Forestry & Horticulture. The agreement will basically state
that no certificate of occupancy will be issued for the project until Rolland Moore
Drive is constructed.
3. Offsite easements (in the form of deeds of dedication to the City) are required
with the final compliance submittal and review. There appear to be offsite
easements required for grading, drainage, and bicycle pedestrian. I'd suggest
preparing an exhibit to verify all the easement needed with final compliance.
4. The plat shows a centerline of a 30' drainage swale alignment. This area
should be shown in its entirety, not a portion. Also, as it appears this is outside
of platted city owned right-of-way, this should be an "easement" not an
"alignment".
5. Include LCUAS S Detail 7-29A for the Rolland Moore Drive Details on Sheet 14.
6. The site plan indicates future phasing, please distinguish this from existing
improvements. Please indicate and distinguish what may be a phase 2 (verses
future phasing) from what is shown as phase 1. Rolland Moore Drive appears
to not be constructed with the first phase, however this was indicated otherwise
from Jim Clark.
7. The utility plan set should also have a Phasing Plan distinguishing existing from
proposed Phases 1, 2 and any subsequent phases (via different line
weights/line types.)
Date'
CHECK HER; IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat = /1` Site -----Drainage Report Other —
utility Redline Utility Landscape
Page 1
List all inverts into and out of sanitary sewer manholes. Maintain a minimum of 4 feet
of cover over all existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. Clearly define any and
all adjustments to sanitary sewer manholes rims. List existing and proposed rim
elevations for those manholes which must be adjusted, on the overall utility plans.
45
Will a conflict be created between the existing storm sewer located in Centre Avenue
and the proposed 6-inch water main. Provide invert and top of pipe elevations for
the existing storm sewer at the water main crossing.
46
Water services must remain the same size from the water main to a point 5 feet
downstream of the meter pit. Clearly define this on the overall utility plans.
47
Provide profiles for all storm sewers which cross existing/proposed sanitary sewer
and water mains.
48
Provide a manhole adjustment detail on the detail sheet.
49
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments
Page 2
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
Citv of Fort Collins
December 20, 2000
City of Fort Collins/Parks Planning
c/o Jim Clark
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Dear Jim,
Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Community Horticulture
Center (C.A.T. 22nd Filing) - Project Development Plan (PDP) that was
submitted to the City on November 15, 2000, and would like to offer the
following comments:
1. Gary Huett of Public Service Company (Excel Energies) stated that
they will need to install a 4" natural gas main on the north side of
Rolland Moore Drive in a 15' wide utility easement from Centre Avenue to
Bridgefield Lane to the west. Will Rolland Moore Drive be constructed off -
site to the west in conjunction with development of the Community
Horticulture Center? The utility easement on the north side of Rolland
Moore Drive will need to continue off -site to the west.
2. The attorney for the Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigation Company and
the Arthur Irrigation Company stated that this project does not affect the
Larimer County Canal No. 2. It does affect the Arthur Ditch but the
irrigation company has no objection.
3. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office stated that they have no concerns or
comments regarding this development proposal.
4. Bruce Vogel of Light & Power stated that they have no concerns or
comments regarding this development proposal.
5. Beth Sowder of Streets stated that they have no concerns or comments
regarding this development proposal.
281 North Culp-„ e Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
EDAW
MEMORANDUM
EDAW ING TO Steve Olt
240 EAST MOUNTAIN AVE FROM David Stipe
FORT COLLINS COLORADO DATE August 14, 2002
60524 cc Greg Hurst, Marc Virata, Wes Lamarque, Steve Seefeld, Jeff Hill
SUBJECT Response to written comments concerning utilities for the Fort Collins
T E L 970 484 6073 Horticulture Center PDP submittal date 8/ 14/02
FAX 970 494 6518 Gentlemen,
www.edaw.com The following is a series of written responses to your written comments. Please refer to your
comment sheets for clarification.
Response to Tom Reiff s comments dated January 4, 2002
1. The edge of walk is Y+ away for the top of the box culvert, no railing will be required.
2. No perimeter fence is being constructed in this phase. No Future construction phases have
been planned.
Response to Len Hilderbrand's comments dated January 4, 2002
1. No trees will be planted within 4' of the gas line.
Response to En2ineerinLy comments dated January 4, 2002
1. The name of the project is CAT 22nd Filing "Community Horticultural Center". The
drawings have been changed.
2. All off -site easements are being provided as a separate submittal by Mike Lang of Sear
Brown.
3. The plat language was discussed in a meeting on November 14, 2001. The current plat
reflects the decisions made in this meeting.
4. There is only one grading plan in the current set of drawings.
5. The notes on the utility drawing have been changed according to decisions made in a
meeting held November 14, 2001.
Response to Stormwater comments date January 4, 2002
1. Line weights and drawing orientation have been revised to make the drawing set more clear.
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
Response to Transportation Planning comments dated January 4, 2002
1. Culvert has been completely developed. The walks are 3'+ away from the top of the
culverts with plantings as separation. No railing is needed.
No fence is being constructed in this phase of the project. No future phases of construction
have been planned.
Response to Marc Virata's comments dated January 4, 2002
31. Shown on site plan. No future construction phases are currently planned.
32. The grading plan in the site plan documents has been incorporated into the utility
drawings. No grading information is provided with the site plan.
33. Spots for the maintenance area appear on the grading plans.
34. The notes have been incorporated on the correct plan sheet.
35. CSURF is no longer a signatory on the plat.
36. Existing contours show up as dashed where possible. The base information provided by
the city contains some lines which can not be manipulated. Street repair note appears on the
utility plans.
37. Letters of intent will be provided for the project through Steve Seefeld's office.
38. Note not applicable to the new plans showing 3 24" RCPs.
Response to Wes Lamaraue's comments dated January 4, 2002
1. No structures will be constructed in the flood plain in this phase of construction. The permit
will be kept on file in Jim Clark's office.
2. 'The floodway/floodplain line is not required on the plat according to the Real Estate
Department.
3. 'The most recent floodplain line is included in the drawing set for the submittal. The
floodplain/floodway line was provided digitally by Anderson Consulting,
4. The dumpster has been anchored to the ground. See detail in the plans. The dumpster can't
be moved out of the floodplain, it needs to stay in the parking lot for access reasons. The area
manager will insure that the dumpster is anchored at all times.
5. .All benches and bike racks will be anchored into the ground for floodplain and security
reasons. A note has been put on the cover (#26) and this has been spelled out in the Drainage
Report.
6. Done
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
7. Need to get map from Anderson Consulting Engineers. Will provide at time of final
submittal of drainage report.
8. A note has been placed on the site plan and it is mentioned in the drainage report
9. Base flood elevation line is provided on sheet 4.
Response to Jeff Hills comments dated January 4, 2002
12. All utilities are shown on the landscape plan and the trees have been moved to the
distances from the lines required.
15. Abandonment procedures are spelled out on the utility plans.
16. All fittings have been called out.
17. Minimum cover is maintained over all underground utilities.
Response to General Comments dated January 4, 2002
42. Plans have been coordinated.
43. No permanent structures are proposed within 5' of the fire hydrant.
44. All inverts are shown on the utility plans. Minimum cover is being maintained. Manhole
rim adjustments are shown on the utility and grading plans.
45. No invert information for the existing sanitary sewer line in Centre Ave. has been provided
by the city. Information will be obtained and provided in the CD set for bidding purposes.
46. Noted on utility plans.
47. profiles have been provided.
48. Provided on plans.
49. All comments on sheet have been addressed.
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
Response to Zoning comments dated January 4, 2002
1. Shown on Site Plan.
The drive aisle for the parking lot is 24'.
3. No shelters or gazebos are planned for the phase of construction. No future construction
plans are currently planned for the project.
4. Only one phase of construction in this set of plans.
Project Manager
DESIGN, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTS WORLDWIDE
FINAL COMPLIANCE
City of Fort ��l
Collins COMMENT SHEET
Current Planning
DATE: August 14, 2002 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #53-85BA CAT 22nd Filing — Community Horticulture
Center - Type I (LUC) — FINAL COMPLIANCE
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
August 28, 2002
Note -_Please identify your redlines for future reference
r occe,?
«-4 i-ov Ax 4�15 c C-
Name (please print)
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other
_Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape
Citv of Fort Collins
iiiProject Comments Sheet
City of Fort Collins Selected Departments
Department: Engineering
Date: September 4, 2002
Project:
C.A.T., 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY HORTICULTURE CTR PDP,#53-85AZ
and Final Compliance
All comments must: be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the
staff review meeting:
August 14, 2002
Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference
Issue Contact: Marc Virata
36
In general, distinguishing between existing and proposed contours could not be interpreted on most sheets.
It appears patching on Centre Avenue needs to be shown for the fire line. Add this note next to any street cuts:
"Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits are to be determined by the City Engineering Inspector at
the time the street cuts are made."
[8/28]
Expand the street patches along Centre Avenue to show a minimum asphalt patch width of 6' (the width of the
entire bikelane) rather than what appears to be 2'.
Topic: General
31
The documents should show the maintenance facility taking access off of Rolland Moore
Drive as a future phase of the development.
[8/281
In general, it was not outwardly apparent from the review that this is being shown as a
future phase of development. The utility plans imply that no parking lot (either off Centre
or Rolland Moore) is to be constructed based upon the line weight being used. The site
and landscape plans appear to better shown (based upon line weights, not labels) what
is proposed or future. The driveway off of Rolland Moore which is shown as to be
constructed at this time per the site and landscape plans, as well as JR's portion of the
utility plans, should be shown in a bolder line weight (to be constructed at this time) on
the plans prepared by EDAW.
Sig lure D to
HECK HE F YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
flat _ ��e _drainage Report Other —
Utility _ --'Redline Utility ✓ Landscape
Page 1
55
All easements and rights -of -way by separate document need to be provided. Mylars will
not be signed off until these deeds are provided.
57
Please remove information from behind the utility plan approval block. The approval
block should appear clear and free of drawing data.
58
Please change the title of all documents from C.A.T. 22nd to Centre for Advanced
Technology, 22nd Filing. This is to ensure the project is filed in the same manner as the
previous filings.
60
On sheet 8, please label additional contours (such as the existing contours on Centre
Avenue as well as the proposed contours within and south of Rolland Moore Drive.)
Topic: Plat
59
The plat shows easements (such as the utility easement along Centre Avenue and the
access and emergency access easement internal to the property) that I believe should
be shown as alignments because of the City cannot being grantor/grantee issue.
Page 2
Citvot Fort Collins
City of Fort Collins
c/o Jim Clark
215 N. Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Date: 9/5/2002
Staff has reviewed your submittal for C.A.T., 22ND FILING, COMMUNITY
HORTICULTURE CTR PDP, #53-85AZ - Final Compliance, and we offer the
following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
28
Len Hilderbrand of Excel Energy (Public Service) offered the following
comments:
1. No trees may be planted within 4' of gas lines.
2. The some comments apply as stated on 5/3/01.
Topic: Genera/
62
Is the path shown along the west side of the property on the Site Plan existing
or proposed?
63
The plans before staff for review at this time are final compliance plans. The
Site Plan needs the appropriate signature blocks. Please see attachments from
the Development Manual.
65
Typically, the Building Elevations Plan should show, generally, the proposed
colors for the building materials.
Page 1
Topic: Landscape Plan
64
The Landscape Plan needs the standard notes as set forth in Section 3.2.1(I) of
the Land Use Code. Also, please check with Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, to
see if he wants other notes on the Landscape Plan.
Topic: Plat
61
The Technical Services Department offered the following comments:
a. The outside boundary and legal description do close.
b. The title on the subdivision plat (and other documents) should be Centre
for Advanced Technology, etc., to be consistent with previous filings in
C.A.T.
c. Why isn't Rolland Moore Drive being dedicated with this subdivision plat?
d. What dedicated Centre Avenue?
e. The easements shown at the northwest and southwest corners of this
plat are unclear.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
36
In general, distinguishing between existing and proposed contours could not be
interpreted on most sheets.
It appears patching on Centre Avenue needs to be shown for the fire line. Add
this note next to any street cuts: "Limits of street repair are approximate.
Final limits are to be determined by the City Engineering Inspector at the time
the street cuts are made."
[8/28]
Expand the street patches along Centre Avenue to show a minimum asphalt
patch width of 6' (the width of the entire bikelane) rather than what appears
to be 2'.
Page 2
Topic: 6ener al
31
The documents should show the maintenance facility taking access off of
Rolland Moore Drive as a future phase of the development.
[8/28]
In general, it was not outwardly apparent from the review that this is being
shown as a future: phase of development. The utility plans imply that no parking
lot (either off Centre or Rolland Moore) is to be constructed based upon the
line weight being used. The site and landscape plans appear to better shown
(based upon line weights, not labels) what is proposed or future. The driveway
off of Rolland Moore which is shown as to be constructed at this time per the
site and landscape plans, as well as JR's portion of the utility plans, should be
shown in a bolder line weight (to be constructed at this time) on the plans
prepared by EDAW.
55
All easements and rights -of -way by separate document need to be provided.
Mylars will not be: signed off until these deeds are provided.
57
Please remove information from behind the utility plan approval block. The
approval block should appear clear and free of drawing data.
58
Please change the title of all documents from C.A.T. 22nd to Centre for
Advanced Technology, 22nd Filing. This is to ensure the project is filed in the
same manner as the previous filings.
60
On sheet 8, please label additional contours (such as the existing contours on
Centre Avenue as well as the proposed contours within and south of Rolland
Moore Drive.)
Topic: Plot
59
The plat shows easements (such as the utility easement along Centre Avenue
and the access and emergency access easement internal to the property) that I
Page 3
6. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following
comments:
a. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 600' along
an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering
1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi.
No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire
hydrant.
b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the
property, and posted on a contrasting background (example:
bronze numerals on a brown brick are not acceptable).
C. A fire lane is required. The fire lane shall be visible by painting and
signage, and it must remain unobstructed.
d. The ;proposed building exceeds 5,000 square feet in size and must
be fire contained or fire sprinklered.
e. Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the
front. of every building equipped with a fire sprinkler system or fire
alarm system.
Please contact Michael, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these
comments.
7. A copy of the comments received from Doug Moore of the City's Natural
Resources Department is attached to this comment letter. Please
contact Doug, at 224-6143, if you have questions about his comments.
8. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Broadband (cable television) stated that
they have no concerns or comments regarding this development
proposal.
9. Rick Lee of the Building Inspection Department has provided a list of
the various codes that the Fort Collins Building Department will enforce
(attached) . There is very little information provided, so until further
information is provided they find no Code requirements.
10. Peter Wray of the Advance Planning Department stated that they have
no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal.
believe should be shown as alignments because of the City cannot being
grantor/grantee issue.
Department: Natural Resources
Topic: General
54
Issue Contact: Doug Moore
Preble's Mouse Survey expire after 1 year- The Preble's Mouse Survey on file
with the Natural Resources department is dated September 27, 2000. Contact
your consultant on information about updating the survey. 3.4.1(0)(2)
Topic: Landscape Plan
56
Planting notes are poor quality and do not cover the information require. The
Fort Collins Development Manual requires standard landscape notes for all
required landscape plans. Contact Tim Buchanan, City Forester (221-6361) for
information on what notes are required.
Department: PFA
Topic: fire
50
Issue Contact: Ron Gonzales
This building is required to be fire sprinklered because it is out of access
(beyond 150' from fire lane), or provide a second point of access from Roland
Moore Drive.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: floodplain
41
1. Previous comment #2 has not been addressed. The hand written note on the
comment said "Steve will contact Marsha". We have attempted to contact both
Steve Olt and Steve Seefeld concerning this issue and have not heard a reply.
This is a requirement that needs to be met.
2. Previous comment #3 has not been addressed. There is still a difference in
the floodplain mapping. Please review and revise as necessary.
3. With regard to previous comment #4, who will take responsibility for insuring
that the dumpster is always anchored? Please include this in the text of the
drainage report.
Page 4
4. The text that was written in the drainage report for Previous Comment #6 is
not clear and does not accurately reflect the reasons the ACE reports were
prepared. Also, the note about a Letter of Map Revision being required after
construction was not in the text as previously requested.
5. Previous comment #7 was not addressed. The copy of the FEMA map with
the site marked was not found in the drainage report. Please make sure this
map, including date is referenced in the text of the drainage report.
6. Previous Comment #9 was not addressed. The floodplain cross -sections and
BFE lines are not shown on the drainage plans. These should be the same cross -
sections and BFE lines shown in the ACE report for the fully developed
condition hydrology.
Department: Stormwater Utility
Topic: 6enerol
51
Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan
Since no drainage report was submitted yet the stormwater comments will be
forthcoming at least a week after a drainage report is submitted and received
by Stormwater.
Department: Transportation Planning
Topic: 6enervl
52
No further comments
Department: Water Wastewater
12
Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Repeat Comment; Maintain the required landscape/utility separation distance
on the landscape plans.
15
Repeat Comment; Clearly define the abandonment procedure for all
water/sewer lines being abandoned.
45
Repeat Comment; Will a conflict be created between the existing storm sewer
located in Centre Avenue and the proposed 6-inch water main. Provide invert
Page 5
and top of pipe elevations for the existing storm sewer at the water main
crossing.
49
Please correctly reference all notes and sheets in all views.
53
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
1
REPEAT COMMENT: building envelopes for all buildings (including accessory
buildings like the shelter, gazebo, pump house) need to be shown and
dimensioned. They now show what I guess is an envelope, but they haven't
labeled it. Also, -they've shown the distance from buildings to lot lines, but
haven't shown dimensions of the envelopes.
2
REPEAT COMMENT: What's the drive aisle width in the parking lot
3
Need elevations drawings of shelter, gazebo, etc. If they aren't a part of the
approved plan, then a minor amendment for elevation approval will be required
at time of building permit application.
4
The landscape note regarding installation prior to CO or securing it in the
amount of 125% mentions landscape phasing. But it's not clear to me from the
landscape plan that there is more than 1 phase. If there are going to be
multiple phases, need to make sure phase lines are shown on landscape plan.
Page 6
The following comments and concerns were expressed at staff review on August
28th:
Stnrmwntor
1. Easements from CSURF are needed for work at the southwest corner of
the site.
2. An off -site easement is needed for the bike/pedestrian trail.
3. A Floodplain Use Permit may be needed.
4. The Sherwood Lateral Ditch Company will have to sign the plans.
5. Stormwater did not get all the drainage information they had requested.
One item is what is the capacity of the ditch? These initial comments
from staff will not be complete because of this.
Engineering
1. A street right-of-way dedication is needed for the new Rolland Moore
Drive.
2. The street patching limits on Centre Avenue need to be shown on the
utility plans.
3. Are the building elevations as submitted for Final Compliance review the
some as the elevations that went to administrative public hearing?
4. The plans must spell out the Centre for Advanced Technology and complete
the title with the 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center.
5. What mechanism dedicated Centre Avenue?
6. The plans are still difficult to read.
Page 7
Water/Wastewater
1. The invert elevation at Centre Avenue is needed.
Natural Resources
1. The required Prebles Jumping Mouse Study previously submitted is out of
date.
2. The Landscape Plan notes are not sufficient.
Poudre Fire Authority
1. It appears that the building is out of access and, therefore, must be fire
sprinklered.
Planning
1. The Building Elevations Plans do not appear to be complete.
2. There are numerous notes missing on the Landscape Plan.
3. The required Owner's and Director of Planning signature blocks are missing
on the Site Plan.
4. Comments numbered 51 and above in this letter are specific to the Final
Compliance review.
5. This comment letter is not complete because all of the necessary drainage
information has not yet been submitted. The current 5tormwater Utility
comments are not included in this letter.
Page 8
Be sure and return all of your red -lined 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)221-6341.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
Page 9
1 1. Peter Barnes of the Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a. This is a "Community Facility". In the E - Employment District it is
a secondary use and cannot occupy more than 25% of the
development plan. Is a modification to this standard needed?
b. The Site Plan needs a lot of work, such as:
• Building envelopes for all buildings need to be shown and
dimensioned.
• What is the driveway width?
• Remove the topo lines and existing trees.
• Label all areas (similar to how they are labeled on the
Illustrative Master Plan).
• Label walks and show dimensions.
• Label what all the buildings are (such as uses).
The Site Plan right now is too raw to give detailed comments.
C. Provide ramps at the handicapped parking area.
d. The City's Land Use Code is unclear as to what the maximum
allowed number of parking spaces is. This must be determined.
e. The proposed wall signage locations may not comply with the City's
Sign Code.
f. This site is in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. If the
applicant wants wall signs, the sign locations (only) must be shown
on the Building Elevations.
g. A Landscape Plan (meeting the requirements on Page 7, Project
Development Plan Submittal Requirements, of the City's
Development Manual) is needed.
h. Show building heights on the Building Elevations.
The building cannot be located more than 15' from the rights -of -
way of the adjacent streets unless it complies with one of the
excerptions set forth in Section 3.5.3(13)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code.
Please contact Peter, at 221-6760, if you have questions about his
comments.
12. A copy of the comments received from Marc Virata of the Engineering
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments
may be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Marc, at 221-6750, if you have questions about
his comments.
13. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater
Utility is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments may be
found on red -lined plans and reports that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Donald, at 416-2053, if you have questions
about his comments.
14. A copy of the comments received from Tom Reiff of the Transportation
Planning Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional
comments are on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. Please contact Tom, at 416-2040, if you have questions about
his comments.
15. Rick Richter of the Engineering Pavement Department stated that they
have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal.
16. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that the applicant should discuss
with Transfort the potential for a future transit stop near the site.
17. Representatives of the Mapping/Drafting Department offered the
following comments:
a. The subdivision plat and the legal description do not close.
b. The curve data for all curves needs to be completed.
Please contact Jim Hoff, at 221-6588, or Wally Muscott, at 221-6605, if
you have questions about their comments.
18. Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, stated that
she has no comments at this time regarding the City's irrigation and
water conservation standards.
19. A copy of the comments received from Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments
may be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the
applicant. ]Please contact Jeff, at 221-6674, if you have questions about
his comments.
20. Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department stated that he and
Alison Brady are coordinating the park with you.
The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff
Review meeting on December 13, 2000:
Engineering (Marc Virata
21. The driveway off -set with the NRRC across Centre Avenue, to the east,
could be a problem. The protected left maybe cannot occur. Ward
Stanford of Traffic Operations stated that the alignment could be
improved.
22. Is this a minimum or maximum parking allowance type of land use?
23. Labeling on the Site Plan should be provided. Cannot tell what is what.
24. Remove the grading (topo) from the Site Plan.
25. The Sherwood Lateral Ditch Company must be a signer of the
subdivision plat.
26. Based on the contours, we cannot tell what is going on on -site.
27. Easements for a temporary turnaround and drainage are needed.
28. The subdivision plat does not close. Curve data is missing.
29. It may be necessary to show an emergency access plan on the map.
30. Who builds the Spring Creek trail?
31. The utility, plans are generally lacking a lot of information.
32. The Sherwood Lateral ditch realignment cannot be done prior to
this development request going to public hearing for a decision.
Transportation Planning (Tom Reiff)
33. What type of events are going to occur at this facility? This will determine
the traffic generations.
34. The topo line layer should be turned off of the Site Plan. It is confusing.
35. Will there be medians in Centre Avenue?
36. The Transportation Impact Study ignores the bicycle/pedestrian level of
service from the Spring Creek trail to this facility.
37. Because of the larger attendance events planned for this facility, there
will be shared parking with NRRC. How will the unprotected cross -walk
across Centre Avenue work?
38. Identify the handicapped parking spaces and provide access ramps.
39. Lighting at the north end of the site, at the trail access, is lacking.
40. How wide is the bicycle/pedestrian trail?
41. Will bicyclists be riding through this facility on the trails and/or
sidewalks?
Stormwater Utility (Basil Hamdan)
42. A floodplain report must be provided. This needs to be included with
a re -submittal of the project or the Stormwater Utility will not
accept the re -submittal.
43. There are lots of problems with the original submittal. City staff and
the applicant must meet to discuss the concerns.
44. All of the detailed calculations are not included in the information that
has been provided.
45. Drainage easements are needed.
46. There are required notes missing from the utility plans.
47. An adequate drainage plan is needed.
48. An adequate grading plan is needed.
49. Show off -site contours on the grading plan.
50. The drainage facilities for this development should be shown on the
Landscape Plan, when one is submitted.