The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCIMARRON PLAZA PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-07-07DATE 1/g/i/ ITEM: 0 -*78-S / COMMENTS DEPARTMENT,=r4/;wy/> �imwvrart A?vr-c- +�. U.D. . • 1Rrr."x,. t. 4 CITY -OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484 4220 -7.'",•r, .:'�SYk�ielMsr7.. ✓SiR"5':,9!&'iS'i"::A.=E@1�2' ti9°1J"'°- PLANNING DIVISION EXT. 655 December 22, 1981 Mr. Tony Hughes Gefroh Associates 555 S. Howes, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Tony: The staff has reviewed the application for Final PUD approval of Cimarron Plaza and offers the following comments: 1. The subdivision plat has not indicated utility easements interior to the project. The staff would recommend a blanket easement over the property. The Public Service Company would recommend that the utility easement adjacent to Drake Road be increased to 15-feet in width. 2. The landscape plan should include a note that all landscaping maintenance shall be the responsibility of the owners association. 3. The site plan should indicate dimensions of property line less the dedication of right-of-way. 4. Building envelopes should be dimensioned from at least two platted property lines. 5. Loading zones must contain a minimum of 500 sf. 6. Tract lines should be more clearly delineated and dimensioned. 7. The staff has some questions over the proposed phasing plan as indicated in a letter from you dated December 10, 1981. 8. Access easements should be dedicated over all parking lots and major walkways. 9. Site plan should include details of "low profile lighting." 10. Seventeen foot (17-ft) stall depths should be used where the space abuts open space or 6-foot sidewalks. 11. Site plan should indicate provision of vestibules at building entrances per approved preliminary plan. Mr. Tony Hughes Gefroh Associates, Inc. December 22, 1981 Page Two 12. Additional landscaping should be provided along west side of south entrance. 13. How are existing trees to be treated where they are located in plazas or parking areas? 14. Landscape islands near gas station building should be maintained at same size as was approved on the preliminary plan. 15. Landscape plan should indicate height of landscape berms. 16. Mylars of architectural elevation should be submitted as soon as possible. 17. The Point Charts as submitted do not match the Point Charts as approved for the preliminary plan. Please explain. I would suggest that we meet as soon as possible to discuss the above comments. Revisions to the final PUD plans reflecting the above comments should be delivered to this office not later than Monday, January 11, 1982 (5 copies). Also, on Monday, January 18, 1982, 8-1/2"xll" reductions of all plans and colored renderings of the site plan should be submitted. If you should have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to call. Sincerely, 7 Joe a n k Senio Planner JF/fsr cc: Josh Richardson, Development Engineer Ken Waido, Acting Planning Director DATE: Iterm! �J� 0 r I.., Ig..- gz-- CONCEP JAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS MEETING DATE: February 6, 1984 ITEM: Blue 0 Development PUD APPLICANT: ZVFK, 218 West Mountain, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521 LAND USE DATA: Gas/convenience center, retail/office and office/auto-service uses COMMENTS: 1. Convenience store parking spaces should be shown in addition to employee parking. Loading/unloading area should be indicated. 2. There may be additional street improvements required. For instance, tapers off -site on arterials and/or extension of Shields Street to Davidson Drive. 3. A traffic impact study will be required. The traffic study should indicate impact with and without curb cut to Shields Street. 4. The access design from the gas station to Raintree Drive should be priori- tized. Also, the access design from the retail/office area should be priori- tized. 5. Davidson Drive access will need to be put in with the gas station phase. 6. 100' setback from parking to flowline of adjacent arterial streets will be required. 7. Existing sewer and water lines are in Drake Road. 8. Architectural compatibility between buildings is critical. 9. Adequate parking should be provided for the 4000 square foot office space. CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION July 1, 1985 Mr. Ed Zdenek ZVFK Architects/Planners 11 Old Town Square Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Ed: For your information, attached is a copy of the staff's comments concerning the Cimarron Plaza PUD which was presented at Conceptual Review on July 1, --- It should be clearly understood the attached comments are offered informally by staff to assist the applicant in preparing the detailed components of the project application. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the staff from making modification of, or additions to, the above comments at the time of formal application. If you should have any questions please feel free to call the Community Development Department at 221-6750. Sincerely, Joe/Fra k City Pl nner JF/kb Attachment CC: Linda Hopkins, Acting Community Development Director Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION CONCEF 7UAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS MEETING DATE: '111._...1..^ J — lggF ITEM: Cimarron --Plaza Pup APPLICANT: Wheeler R al v. ./O 7VFK Architrart-,/Plannarc 11 Old Town Square Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80524 LAND USE DATA: 45,000 square feet of retail, convenience center/gas station, fast food restaurant on 5.86 acres located on the southwest corner of Drake Road and Shields Street COMMENTS: 1. Water service will be from stub in Davidson. This should be extended to Drake Road. Sewer service will be from line in Drake Road. Repays are due for existing water and sewer lines in Drake Road. 2. Fire access will need to be extended from west property. Site plan should indicate existing and proposed hydrants. Sprinkling of building is recommended. 3. Applicants should review approved PUD plan for Cimarron West for requirements that were placed on the subject property. 4. There is an existing CSU ditch that needs to be planned for. 5. Design of entrances should include a 100 foot stacking area from flow line of Shields Street. Traffic Impact Study should address this issue. 6. Applicants should try to keep, intersections in parking to as close to 90 degrees as possible. 7. Traffic Impact Study will be required. Study should address among other things, extension and design of medians in Shields St. and Drake Road; design and need for access points; impact at Davidson/Shields and Drake Road/Shields intersection; use of Davidson to handle commercial traffic; need for deceleration lane. 8. Stacking at restaurant appears to have a problem with major drive. At least five spaces at order board is recommended., 9. Loading zones will be required. 10. Setbacks from arterials do not look adequate. Should try to provide more setback and screening of drive-thru bay. 11. The applicants should consider softening of rear of building from adjacent project. 12. The north side of the convenience store needs to be treated carefully. 13. Parking needs to be looked at. 14. Existing trees needs to be located and good ones saved. No Text CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION August 21, 1985 Ed Zdenek ZVFK Architects Eleven Old Town Square, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Ed, The staff has reviewed the application for preliminary PUD approval of the Cimarron Plaza PUD and offers the following comments: 1. A fifteen foot wide utility easement adjoining the west ROW line of Shields Street and south ROW line of Drake Road will be required in addition to a ten foot utility easement along Davidson Drive. All existing and proposed utility easements should be shown on the site plan. Any unused or unneeded utility easements will be need to be separately vacated. 2. A water line must be installed through the site. A new sewer main must be extended from Drake Road. Repays are due for existing water and sewer lines in Drake Road. 3 There will probably be repays due for existing improvements along both Drake Road and Shields Street. New improvements required as a result of this project will include a deceleration lane on Shields Street at the new curb cut and extension of the existing median in Shields Street south of Davidson Drive. These improvements will need to be designed to City standard. The proposed curb cut on Davidson Drive does not appear to meet City standard in terms of the separation between Shields Street and other curb cuts on Davidson Drive. The proposed curb cut should align with curb cuts on opposite side of street and be separated by at least 200 feet from the intersection of Davidson/Shields. The design of the limited left -turn off of Drake Road needs to be nGvn /lDAACAIT of nninnnir ni�ricinni Cimarron Plaza PUD Com—its August 21, 1985 Page 2 coordinated with the design of the Raintree PUD to assure that it is feasible. The staff questions the desirability from a circulation standpoint the access point from the main driveway to the parking area at the southwest corner of the fast food restaurant. Applicant should provide evidence as to how tanker trucks will access the underground gasoline storage tanks. 4. The sidewalk along Shields Street does not appear to be designed to City standards, for instance, the design of the transition at intersections. Also, all arterial sidewalks will need to be separated from the curb by at least six feet of parkway. Please revise. A sidewalk connection should be provided between Davidson Drive and retail portion of the site. Treatment of crosswalk areas in parking lots should be described on the site plan. Handicapped ramps should be indicated at all crosswalks. Typical dimensions of sidewalks should be shown. 5. The Storm Drainage Staff has a number of questions regarding the proposal including the following: - How will release rate be controlled? - Pipe velocities must be self -scouring at planned release rate. - Need to address consequences of outlets not working. - Depth of ponding for initial and major storms. I would suggest you contact Tom Gathmann, City Storm Drainage Engineer for further details. 6. A water supply analysis must be submitted showing the minimum available water flow in proposed 6" water line for fire protection. Buildings must be designed in accordance with available fire flow and amendments to City Building Code. "No parking" signs must be posted on all fire access roadways of 28 feet or less in width. The applicants should indicate turning radius of parking lots and drives (40' outside and 20' inside turning radius will be required). 7. The Police Department has a number of concerns which should be addressed on the plan. See me for details. 8. Provision of adequate automobile stacking at the fast-food restaurant and the gas pumps should be indicated. Stacking should not interfere with circulation of other traffic on site, including parking of vehicles. The width of the driveway aisle north and south of the fast-food restaurant should be indicated on the plan. Please note on plan that compact car spaces will be signed for "for employee parking only". Motorcycle and bicycle parking should be shown on the plan. The parking study should be revised to address parking impacts of alternative land uses being provided. Loading zones for building's B and D should be shown on the site plan. Also, if building C is to be retail as an alternative use, a loading zone should be provided. Cimarron Plaza PUD Comrr is August 21, 1985 Page 3 9. The buffer area along Drake Road and Shields Street should be increased to match the area provided in the Raintree PUD, including the provision of a generous landscaped area at the intersection. Additional trees, evergreen and shrub plantings should be provided in these areas. The islands in the parking area directly north of retail building A should be landscaped. Wood chips or turf is recommended in the parking islands as an alternative to gravel mulch. Additional foundation plantings should be provided around Building B. The buffer area provided between the service drive and the adjacent future multiple family area does not appear to be sufficient in terms of noise buffering. The staff would recommend that the applicant increase the height of the berm and utilize larger than average size plant materials in these areas. Also, the buffer areas between the multiple family areas and the driving aisle will need to be more carefully treated with berming and extensive landscape screening. The staff questions the desirability of locating the trash area for Building D along the arterial street frontage in terms of visual appearance. 10. The parking lot design at Davidson Drive appears to change the previously approved plans for Cimarron West PUD. The owners of that property should agree to the change prior to review by the Planning and Zoning Board of the preliminary PUD. Prior to final review, the owners of the Cimarron West PUD should submit an application for administrative change to reflect this new plan. 11. The staff questions the desirability of a three story building along Shields Street given the existing character of other approved retail uses in the neighborhood and the relative narrow setback from the street. The staff feels that the building height will tend to dominate the visual appearance of the street rather than blend with the landscape. The applicants should provide evidence to justify the plan design. The preliminary architectural elevations should indicate materials and colors. How will the rear of the building be treated which faces the adjacent multiple family uses? Architectural intent for the rest of the buildings not shown should be indicated on the elevations. 12. The staff questions whether there is a policy basis and a need for a strip commercial center at this location given the existence of three existing or planned neighborhood shopping centers within 1 1/2 miles of the site. I think that we should meet to discuss this item. The staff questions the points you have taken on the Point Charts. See me for details. 13. On September 16, 1985, 8 1/2" x 11" PMT reductions of all plans, colored renderings of the site and building elevations, and ten full size copies of all plans should be delivered to this office by noon. e6hA-d 1-21El / s'`Opjloa� e47.ti. r7, � .516U4-� WaEiC. ,/IrL As .4.1� & I&L v� AoA to , c7✓�q��. . c•c� �u. E � �.ro�an G�� Q�foc �wr 11) AV.& Is 1 Z • 1.�....�.o.� ash. . _•ties. „�� !, a Al�p w t t ur �L*A$ Acmes sj� ogl�t 3. -40"R-&J" O-v�' Zo ZdG 4 4, T Q., e. zLw . , , . . , . rs 1 e ivi. / wTw= !nmr 1t rs.ft.. Cimarron Plaza PUD Comm--ts August 21, 1985 Page 4 I would recommend we meet as soon as possible to comments. Revisions to the plans (five copies) should no later than noon, September 4, 1985. It is extremely above deadlines be followed if the item is to be September meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. If questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Joe Frank Senior City Planner CC: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator discuss the above be submitted to me important that the considered at the you should have any ate: fi =e, z, d-eiDartmento ITEM: 78-81D CIMARRON PLAZA, Phase 1, FINAL COMMENTS: 4?4 r �—dA �- M E M O R A N D U M Bob Snow Mountain Bell -Engineering 124 W. Magnolia TO: Fort Collins, CO 80521 FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator RE: Subdivision Utility Plans DATE: Sentember 6, 1985 Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for: Cimarron.Plaza PUD Please respond by: September 20, 1985 r CITY OF FOPT COLLINS CO%. %!UNITY D-:VcLOPI:'E1�1T March 5, 19s6 David Baker Slack Pascua ,associates 7555 E. Hampden Ave., -=100 Denver, CC Dear David, The staff has reviewed you request for an administrative change to the Cimarron Ue-&t PUD and offers the following comments: 1. The envelope expansion of building C appears to encroach into existing utility easements. The vacation of easements must be approved by the City Council. The approval of the administrative change will be condi- tioned upon these easer-lents being vacated. No building permits will be issued until the easements are vacated by the City Council. I would reco„1,:iena that you contact Bonnie Tripoli of this office for further infor,:iation on the vacation process. 2. A loading zone will need to be provided for shared use by building B and C. Also, a loading zone will be required for building D. 3. Bike parking will need to be provided at convenient and accessible locations. Handicapped stalls will need be at least 12 feet in width. Please indicate on site plan. 4. The proposed electrical equipment at the rear of building B will be setting on a drainage pan which could create problems. 5. Moving building B ten feet closer to Shields Street cannot be approved administratively. I have discussed the matter with Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator and she indicates that the building could be shifted to the south if the proposed water line and easement were also shifted. This alternative should be explored if enlarging the building is needed. ..._ .. .emu �-.✓.-.—..��_ ..i'-�'—�J..:v 4:.Y..erl. u.vvlw � .��. i4i.l�.y�r.....s_a..a.k.ti-.:.i.re A._w�_.._..:.t u�.� r.__e.... .... _�..� OFFICE OF CO%1MUNITY 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 (303) 221-6750 bEVELOPti�EIVT. PLANNING DIVISION b. The staff is concerned �;.t the intrusion of the "electrical screen The applicants should wall" into the Shields C` _,t bufferyard area. l,cations interior to the site for this tacil- investigate al rnative prop, mate- ity. The applicants snou.c provide a description of the p r1d1 S for the 'J`_^.ter el er=�'•c31 S'reen vial l s" for inclusion on the sit' plan. 7. I have discussed the 13 scaping treatment along the east and north aralls of buildinq C wit'n City Arborist. It was his recommendation that there are aIternati�:e landscaping materials which can be reason- ably expected to live in these shaded areas. However, there gay be Other design solutions ac night be investigated by the applicants. For instant the applic:-,ts might �.jish to relocate the planters out parking. The from under the canopy to the edye of the sidewalk and main driveway aisle in front of the buildingsad couldre be reduced from 23 to 20 feet in width in order to provide or the planters and still allow for parking overhang. The foundation plantings was an issue of both the Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board and therefore, I cannot simpi� administratively approve their elimination. Additional snruo plantincs are recommended in the new parking island on the southeast corner of oailding C. B. A note neecs to ne added to the site plan that commits the applicants to installing the paving attern in front of the phase 3 building with development of pnase 3 aS s:no',in On the site plan. The installation u, the paving pattern with ;—,3se I is not necessary at this time. 9. The revised site plan in�icates a rlew planter of approximately 50 feet by c,iyht feet in front the east end of building C. Ho,4ever, landscape plan indicates a much smaller planter. The landscape plan should be revised to accurately represent the site plan. 10. In order to maintain adequate stacking area from Davidson Drive and to provide for minimum channelization of traffic, the maximum width of the entryway to the service and par:.cing area that the Staff will approve is 35 feet. This width should be adequa?for truck reconsider turning redesmovements. gniny the not, I would recommend that the applicants interior circulation of the convenient store/gas operation. 11. For your information, only two identification signs gill be allowed on the site, the plan shows three. The above items need to be addressed before the Staff will approve the administrative change. After the changes have been made, new reproducible my of the site and landscape leaselan feellfreeneed to call me.sub- mitted. If you should have any questions, p Sincerely, Joe Frank, Actiny Planning Director AECEiVED 0 i Slack Pasqua Associates Inc Architecture Planning Interior Design March 17, 1986 Mr. Joe Frank Acting Director of Planning 300 LaPorte Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: C-ima_ron_Tlaza_. Dear Joe: MAR 21 1986 PLANNING IDEPARTMEW I am writing to confirm the directions we established in our meeting on March 12 concerning your comments on our administrative amendment. Our understanding of our discussion is as follows: Comment 1: The envelope expansion of building C appears to encroach into existing utility easements. The vacation of easements must be approved by the City Council. The approval of the administrative change will be conditioned upon these easements being vacated. No building permits will be issued until the easements are vacated by the City Council. I would recommend that you contact Bonnie Tripoli of this office for further information on the vacation process. Resolution: We will go through the vacation/remdedication process to change the easements to avoid our encroachment. The south building wall location will not change from the approved P.U.D. Comment 2: A loading zone will need to be provided for shared use by building B and C. Also, a loading zone will be required for building D. Resolution: We will provide the 2 loading zones as requested. Comment 3: Bike parking will need to be provided at convenient and accessible locations. Handicapped stalls will need be at least 12 feet in width. Please indicated on site plan. Resolution: We will provide bike parking and the note concerning the handicapped width parking as requested. One Tamarac Square 7555 E Hampden Ave Suite 100 Denver Colorado 80231 303 695 0411 Comment 4: The proposed electrical equipment at the rear of building B will be setting on a drainage pan which could create problems. Resolution: We understand this to be Building C and are coorda inating and revising the architectural and civil drawings to eliminate this conflict. Comment 5: Moving building B ten feet closer to Shields Street cannot be approved administratively. I have discussed the matter with Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator, and she indicates that the building could be shifted to the south if the proposed water line and easement were also shifted. This alternative should be explored if enlarging the building is needed. Resolution: Since we are already vacating and readedicating the easements, we will also revise the envelope location for building B in order to preserve the north setback as indicated on the original P.U. D. The water line will also be shifted south to remain in the a 20' wide easement between buildings B and C. On our civil drawings, we will indicate the utilities to stop 10' outside the building line, per our discussion. The remaining utilities would fall under the building permit contract. Comment 6: The staff is concerned about the intrusion of the "electrical screen wall" into the Shields Street bufferyard area. The applicants should investigate alternative locations interior to the site for this facility. The applicants should provide a description of the proposed materials for the other "electrical screen walls" for inclusion on the site plan. Resolution: We will revise the screen wall to screen only the electrical equipment excluding the transformer. The wall will have no side returns, will be held as low as possible, and as close to the building as possible. This will minimize the intrusion to the bufferyard. Screen wall materials will be called out on the plan. Y Comment 7: I have discussed the landscaping treatment along the east and north walls of building C with the City Arborist. It was his recommendation that there are alternative landscaping materials which can be reasonably expected to live in these shaded areas. However, there may be other design solutions that might be investigated by the applicants. For instance, the applicants might wish to relocate the planters out from under the canopy to the edge of the sidewalk and parking. The main driveway aisle in front of the Buildings B and C could be reduced from 28 to 20 feet in width in order to provide more room for the planters and still allow for parking overhang. The foundation plantings was an issue of both the Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board and therefore, I cannot simply administratively approve their elimination. Additional shrub plantings are recommended in the new parking island on the southeast corner of building C. Resolution: We will provide potted planters at each interior column on the sidewalk per our discussion. In addition, we are providing planters at the corner of the entry at the major tenant. The width of the sidewalk and drive lane will remain as shown. Comment 8: A note needs to be added to the site plan that commits the applicants to installing the paving pattern in front of the phase 3 building with development of phase 3 as shown on the site plan. The installation of the paving patter with phase 1 is not necessary at this time. Resolution: We will note the installation of paTers as requested. Comment 9: The revised site plan indicated a new planter of approximately 50 feet by eight feet in front of the east end of building C. However, the landscape plan indicated a much smaller planter. The landscape plan should be revised to accurately represent the site plan. Resolution: We will coordinate and revise the P.U.D. and landscape plan as requested. t Comment 10: In order to maintain adequate stacking area from Davidson Drive and to provide for minimum channeliza-I tion of traffic, the maximum width of the entryway to the service and parking area that the Staff will approve is 35 feet. This width should be adequate for truck turning movements. If not, I would recommend that the applicants reconsider redesigning the interior circulation of the convenient store/gas operation. Resolution:. We will restrict the curb cut width to 35' as requested. Comment 11: For your information, only two identification signs will be allowed on the site, the plan shows three. Resolution: We will indicate 3 project identification signs; one per street frontage as allowed by the sign ordinance. " Joe, I believe we have met and answered all our concerns. We appreciated your working with us to get these issues resolved, so we can proceed with this project. We will concentrate on revising and resubmitting the utility drawings, the plat, and the P.U.D. We would hope that you will do all you can to help us complete these processes as soon as possible. If you have any questions/corrections, please let me know. Most sincerelyhA. Gary W. Ellerm GWE/cc : cc: David Faestel -A Arrowstone Stan Myers 4 RBD CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM BOB SNOW MOUNTAIN BELL -ENGINEERING TO: 124 W. Magnolia Fort Collins, CO 80521 FROM: Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator RE: Subdivision Utility Plans DATE: May 10, 1988 n LS�IE 01JIE f\ MAY I t �' �t Submitted for your review and comment are utility Plans for: Cimarron Plaza Please respond by: May 13, 1988 If Possible. We realize this is a short response period; however, they were received late in our office. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. PLANNING DIVISION •--.rL.t�r+i� 7.z':T9U2ie.VF3Tw1 �nfc�...wS 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750 18- 8r t-o, eel. Ile l r rAc 4 Get 4004; Z!!o ..4e e'-OtXeo-e 4, .eck.. de& � e-,K NEW- 7 • AS L,0AWA. .42 , CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM GARY HUETT PUBLIC SERVICE TO: FROM: Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator RE: Subdivision Utility Plans DATE: May 10, 1988 Submitted for your reviejq and comment are utility plans for: Cimarron Plaza Please respond by: May 13, 1988 If Possible. We realize this is a short response period; however, they were received late in our office. P . D VM ALL, UTI i-- OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221.6750 Engineering Consultants 1 Jn i•rai ,r 7hr Srur-liranvi (;rnup 209 S_ Meldmm Fort Collins. Colorado 80521 970i482-5922 May 17, 1996 Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Utility Services, Stormwater 235 Matthews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Cimarron Plaza, Building A (Phase 2) Dear Basil: The final pad site for Building A in Cimarron Plaza is being proposed for development. I am enclosing excerpts from the drainage report for the Blockbuster Expansion which was completed in November, 1995. The calculation and sketch show that the proposed Building A has already been accounted for in the runoff calculations. The excerpts also show that the impervious area on the site is not being increased from the assumptions made with the Blockbuster Expansion drainage report. The basin delineations and drainage patterns that currently exist on the site will be maintained, in effect, no additional runoff is being directed to Drake Road. Please review the attachments and call with any questions you may have. Respectfully, RB c. Engineering Consultants Patricia Kroetch Project Engineer Denver 303'458-5526 PLANNING DIVISION EXT. 655 September 28, 1981 Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. 555 S. Howes, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear John: The staff has reviewed the application for preliminary approval of the Cimmaron Plaza and would offer the following comments as to the project's success or fai ure to address the applicable criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. ALL DEVELOPMENT - NUMBERED CRITERIA 1. Criterion #1 & 2 - The use of earth berms in combination with plant materials along the property's west and south property lines would be a much more effective and appealing as a noise and visual barrier than the proposed 6-foot high wood fence. 2. Criterion #4 - The staff is concerned that the proposed uses may have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding residential PUD. The applicant should provide a traffic impact study indicating traffic being generated by the project and its impact upon surrounding streets. 3. Criterion #6 - One shade -tree, of an approved species, should be provided for every 50 lineal feet of arterial street. Please revise. 4. Criterion #7 - The site plan should indicate the provision of a 10-foot utility easement along Drake Road and Shields Street. 5. Criterion #7 - The sewer service line that is proposed for the project on the southwest corner of the intersection of Drake Road and Shields Street will have to be installed by the applicant prior to the paving of Drake Road. If not, the sewer service will be from another line which would not require cutting the new asphalt. 6. Criterion #7 - Fire hydrant locations should be indicated. 7. Criterion #7 - Size and location of water services should be indicated. 8. Criterion #7 - Sidewalks at corners of arterial streets should be designed adjacent to the curb for a minimum distance of 75-feet back from the inter- section. Sixty (60) foot radius curves should be used to transition side- walk to the curb. Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. September 28, 1981 Page 2 9. Criterion #7 - The roadway work for the 40-feet of property being given to the Cimmaron West PUD will be improved and constructed with the first phase of this development. How does the applicant intend to plat this 40-foot strip? 10. Criterion #7 - If the two stub streets in Cimmaron West are not to be public streets, then the right-of-way should be vacated. 11. Criterion #7 - The site plan should indicate that the median along Drake Road will be extended between the Drake Road/Shields Street and Raintree Drive/Drake Road intersections. 12. Criterion #7 - The parking section as shown is very poor. If an inverted crown'is to be used, a concrete pan should be installed. The staff would recommend in lieu of an inverted crown that section slope to curb and gutter be utilized. 13. A minimum 15-foot building setback from back edge of sidewalk to the building must be provided for installation and maintenance of utilities. This area should be dedicated as utility easement. 14. Criterion #10 - The staff would recommend that in order to provide for safe and convenient ingress and egress to the site, that the Lightfoot Lane connection be retained as was originally approved. If this connection is maintained, water service should be from lines in that street. 15. Criterion #15 - Motorcycle parking should be indicated. Bicycle parking for gas station/mini-store should be provided. Parking along Shields Street should be setback from the property at least the same distance as the building setback. Landscaping should be intensified between parking and public streets. 16. Criterion P16 - The applicant should provide evidence that a fire truck can maneuver through the site. Parking lots should be designed with 40-foot outside turning radius and 20-foot minimum inside turning radius. A note should be added to the plan that the first stories of all structures shall be within 1.50-feet of the access roadway for these structures or the struc- tures shall be equipped with approved sprinklers. 17. Criterion #17 - Screening treatment of trash areas should be indicated. 18. Criterion #23 - Parking islands should include low lying bushes in addition to shade trees. Landscaping of building envelopes should be intensified in quantity and quality. Landscaping should be.introduced adjacent to gas station/mini-store envelope. 19. Criterion #24 - Are there trees which are to be removed that are not indicated on the site plan? If so, please indicate. Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. September 28, 1981 Page 3 20. Criterion #26 - Signage should be indicated. 21. Criterion #36 - The applicant should provide evidence to show that exterior lighting of parking lots and buildings will not glare into adjacent residen- tial areas. 22. Criterion #38 - The staff questions the points you have taken on Point Chart A. I would recommend we meet as soon as possible to discuss this item. ALL ACTIVITY CATEGORIES - NUMBERED CRITERIA 23. D: Auto -Related and Roadside Commercial - Criterion #5: The applicant should submit a completed Point Chart D for the gas station use. OTHER COMMENTS 24. A repayment agreement exists for installation of water and sewer lines in Drake Road and Shields Street. Contact Warren Jones in the Sewer & Water Division for details. 25. "Land Use Breakdown" statistics should include number of bicycle, motorcycle and handicapped spaces being provided. 26. Land uses being proposed should be more specific. "Business Services" is too general. 27. The site plan indicates existing trees at the Drake Road/Shields Street intersection which have been subsequently removed. New trees should be substituted. 28. Preliminary architectural elevations should be submitted. 29. Before final approval of any phase of this proposal may be achieved, the developers cf Cimmaron West will be required to gain approval by the City for the changes being proposed in that development. The project will be reviewed and appraised against the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. I would recommend we meet as soon as possible to discuss the above comments. Revisions to the plan should be submitted no later than October 9, 1981. Also, on October 19, 1981, 8-z" x 11" reductions and colored renderings should be submitted. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Joe Frank Senior Planner JF/fsr cc: Curt Smith, Planning Director Josh Richardson, Development Engineer CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 PH (303) 484-4220 PLANNING DIVISION Uctober 7, 1981 Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. 555 S . Howes, Suite 100 Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Dear John: At their October 7, 1981 meeting, the Utility Coordinating Committee reviewed the Cimarron Plaza PUD and resolved the following: 1. Gas service to the three buildings along Shields Street will be directly from an existing line along that street. Service to the gas station will be from a line to be installed along Drake Road. Service to the interior building will be from a line that will run along the south property line. A 10-foot easement will be required along the west edge of the west sidewalk at the south entrance (on Cimarron West property). Fifteen (15) feet of unobstructed access should be provided along the south property line. 2. Light and Power will locate under the parking lot. The additional cost of locating under the pavement will be borne by the developer. 3. Three electrical transformers will be required, dependent upon the requirement, of the project. Tentative locations were identified for you. 4. The staff will permit the developer to cut into the new pavement on Drake Road to tie into the manhole which exists at the northwest corner of the development. A cut will also be permitted into Drake Road to tie into the water line as shown on the preliminary utility plans. The developer will be required to install the full depth pavement along Drake Road from the point at which the City project ends to the west property line. The taper on Drake Road will have to be adjusted as a result of the above street improvement, the cost of which will be borne by the applicant. 5. It is recommended that a utility easement be granted across all areas unencumbered by building envelopes. EXT. 655 Mr. John Dengler Gefroh Associates, Inc. October 7, 1981 Page Two If you should have any further questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Joe Fra k Senior P anner JF/fsr cc: Mauri Rupel, Development Engineer Curt Smith, Director of Planning & Development DATE DEPARTMENTc✓trNe��i//E ITEM: CrolmOrvrA P4474 — pv-0 /0 AIS p 604 5 COMMENTS calls. o c� �v)