Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutROBINSON PIERSAL PLAZA PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2009-03-12.. r D A d 7 May 85 **40 DIE]DAIR ROBINSON PIERSAL PLAZA - Preliminary PUD 26-85A 04"�MMENTS V CITY OF FONT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION May 21, 1985 Mr. Ed Zdenek ZVFK 11 Old Town Square, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Ed: Staff has reviewed the Master Plan and Preliminary PUD submittal for Robinson Piersal Plaza and has the following comments. Revisions reflecting these comments are due by noon on June 4, 1984. Items that cannot be shown on the plans should be addressed in writing. PUD Plan: 1. Traffic concerns are summarized in Rick Ensdorff's May 13 memo which you have already received. 2. Access to the service area on Magnolia Street should be reworked as was discussed at our May 20th meeting. The service area should not be in the right-of-way. Explain how parking removed from Magnolia Street can be accommodated. 3. Include information on the United Bank drive-thru facility in the traffic analysis. 4. Correct inconsistencies between the site plan, master plan, and traffic impact information. 5. Parking ramp elevations and grades should be added to the plans. It is not clear how the parking structure works in terms of circulation and stacking. Please clarify this graphically. Add stop signs as was previously discussed. 6. Ramps should be heated unless you can demonstrate this is not necessary. C 6 b OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303)221-675 DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION Mr. Ed Zdenek ' From: Elaine KleckneAkW Re: Robinson Piersal May 23, 1985 Page 2 7. Staff suggests the sidewalk design at corners be done like that on the adjacent blocks (with the exception of the southwest and northwest . corners). Handicapped ramps should still be provided. 8. Existing unused curb cuts should be removed/replaced. 9. Damaged curb, gutter or sidewalk damage must be replaced. 10. The plan calls the alley a utility easement. It should be noted as right-of-way to be vacated. 11. The alley must be vacated before development occurs. Existing utilities Li must be relocated before the vacation is finally approved. 12. What is the triangle in the southwest corner? 13. Sidewalks should follow curb returns at all entrances to the site. 14. The Traffic Impact Study does not include an acceleration lane on C� Mulberry. 15. All curb cuts should be concrete to the property line. 16. Provide information on the possibility of using existing storm sewer lines. Cutting up the streets may not be necessary. 17. A 0.90' water depth on the building seems excessive. Can the structure hold this? What happens to the displaced storm water when the residential portion is constructed? 18. One way aisles through the parking area must be 20' wide unless overhang occurs, in which case 22' is required. 19. 90 degree spaces must be 9' wide. 20. It isn't clear where overhang can occur. Is the edge of the parking structure a concrete wall on either level? 21. A lower level parking plan should be provided. 22. Dimension rows of parking spaces, aisles and width of spaces. 23. Fire sprinkler water service must be sized to serve the entire complex including the residential portion unless a separate sprinkler/standpipe system is proposed. The sprinkler connection must be on the Remington or Magnolia side of the building. Check if adequate flow for connection to the 6" water line is available. 24. East -west and north -south access lanes must be designed to support a pumper truck. 25. The Fire Department command center must be included in the first phase. 01 Mr. Ed Zdenek From: Elaine Kleckner,+ Re: Robinson Piersal May 23, 1985 Page 3 26. Building design review by the Poudre Fire Authority should occur before building permit application. 27. Indicate building envelopes and show dimensions. A 2' roof overhang can extend beyond the envelope line. More than 2' must be in the envelope. 28. All signs must comply with the Sign Code. What type of sign system will be used for the project? 29. Show motorcycle and bicycle parking. 30. Minimum width for a landscape island is 8'. 31. A minimum 15' landscaped strip is required between the sidewalk and parking structure. 32. Provide trees in the parking lot islands. 33. Street trees should be 3" caliper minimum. 34. Provide a landscape schedule. 35. Use DDA Design Guidelines for the streetscape to the extent possible. A grass strip is recommended along College Avenue as well as conformity in lighting and street furniture. This will provide consistency with the proposed United Bank expansion. 36. Planning Objectives must be submitted. Address specific City policies and goals and objectives as well as the point charts used. 37. A detailed development phasing schedule should be submitted. What happens under the store until Phase 2 parking is constructed? How many spaces could ultimately be provided? 38. More information on the structure of the grocery store is needed since this will dictate how the future residential development will look. 39. Provide more detail on the elevations. Indicate what the exterior materials will look like, show windows, doors, areas for signage for both the store and parking structure. Provide an east and north elevation also. 40. Indicate how mechanical space is enclosed. 41. Provide sections at a larger scale through the Mulberry Street and College Avenue frontages. 42. Indicate building heights on the elevations. 43. A noise impact study is required, as was previously discussed. • Mr. Ed Zdenek From: Elaine Kleckner Re: Robinson Piersal May 23, 1985 Page 4 44. How will the project deal with the neighborhood concern about odors from the service area? 45. Overall reduction in energy use is an absolute and specific criterion. Please address this. MActur Plan 1. Water and Sewer comments that existing line sizes in Mulberry do not appear large enough to serve the proposed use. 2. A number of existing water services on this block must be abandoned, preferably before Remington is over-layed this summer. 3. The Police Department is concerned about security for the parking structure. Check with them on lighting standards and provide a note on the plans. 4. The plan should indicate where residents will enter the future building. 5. Phase 2 access is poorly located. 6. Provide more information on how the residential portion would be phased in and how this affects the existing uses. 7. Information on Phase 2 building height and mass is needed. Although detailed plans are not required, north -south and east -west sections should be provided. Also, the potential building should be superimposed on views from the Oak Street Plaza, South College Avenue, north Ft. Collins (Country Club area),. the DMA Tower (higher level), Park Lane Towers, and Remington, Peterson and Mathews Streets at a mid -block. 8. Have you explored the possibility of a mid -rise, stepping -down effect for the residential portion? Staff would encourage an imaginative, multi -level approach to depicting the future phase. 9. The Master Plan must include approximate acreage and density of each area, number and type of residential units, estimated floor area, and types of business and commercial uses. 10. Planning Objectives and phasing schedule are also required with a Master Plan submittal. Mr. Ed Zdenek From: Elaine Klecknerr+ Re: Robinson Piersal May 23, 1985 Page 5 I suggest we meet at your convenience to discuss these points. PMTs, colored renderings and copies of the plans for the Board are due on June 14th. Sincerely, Elaine Kleckner Planner cc: Curt Smith, Community Development Director Sam Mutch, Planning Director Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator CITY OF FORT COLLINS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION i 4, i MEMORANDUM , TO: Sam Mutch, Planning Director Elaine Kleckner, City Planner '` '''" FROM: Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer DATE: June 13, 1985 RE: Robertson/Piersal Plaza In a review of the re -submitted site plan and traffic impact study, I would offer the following comments. These comments pertain to issues that I feel need to be resolved before the final approval of the site. 1. The southbound left turn bay at College Avenue and Magnolia Street, in my opinion, is needed with the development of this site. My concerns are that the impacts from the design of this turn bay could be significant. My initial analysis indicates that at a minimum, some median landscaping would be lost and possibly some parking stalls in the median. At this point, all possible designs have not been looked at. Discussions on this design concern need to continue. 2. Responsibility for construction. At the present time, the turn bay improvement is not in the City capital program. Negotiations need to be pursued concerning the responsibility of funding this possible project. 3. Responsibility for Remington Street. If, in fact, Remington Street needs to be restriped, the responsibility for removing existing stripes and layout/restriping needs to be determined. This includes transitions to existing striping south of Mulberry Street and north of Magnolia Street. I —uvu m)-u- - �..-j. oux aou - ron c:omns, Colorado 80522 • (303)221-6615 TRANSPORTATION date: rtmenl,.* ��? - ITEM:7)'(,r�,SCLA F-I I Ea �b Fi n(--L cm \_I CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION August 26, 1985 Mr. Ed Zdenek ZVFK Architects/Planners Eleven Old Town Square Suite.200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Ed: Staff has reviewed the Final PUD submittal for Robinson Piersal Plaza, Phase I, and the Preliminary PUD for Phase II, and has the following comments to offer. Revisions reflecting these concerns should be submitted to the Planning Office by noon on September 4, 1985. Items that can't be shown graphically should be addressed in writing. PHASE I - FINAL PUD 1. Comments from the State Highway Department are attached. A copy has also been forwarded to the City Traffic Engineer. 2. As we discussed on August 16th, the Department of Transportation is opposed to the new left turn onto Mulberry Street. Other issues that require further discussion are outlined in the attached memo from Rick Ensdorff. Conditions of the PUD submittal that have not been fully addressed include:. a. A design solution for the potential stacking problem at the Mulberry Street access. b. A design for the left -turn bay onto Magnolia (we have engineering drawings but still need the landscape plan). c. Developer participation in financing the left -turn bay onto Magnolia. OFFICE OF COMMUNITY T nFVFI nPMFNT. PLANNING DIVISION 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303)221-6750 G M M b. Provision must be made for a grade -level command center and fire pump room. Note its location on the plans. il c. Contact Warren Jones on special review procedures for the parking structure. d. The interface between Phase I and the residential structure must be detailed. 13. The Police Department is concerned that the parking deck design does not' allow for natural surveillance. Contact Lee Frausel in this issue as well as potential loitering problems. 14. At least 9' of clearance must be maintained between the first and second parking level for emergency access. 15. Elevations on the parking deck and drives should be noted on the site plan and elevation at parking deck. 16. Curbing must be noted be noted on the plan for landscapea areas in the parking deck. 17. Show motorcycle parking on the plan. 18. All signs should comply with the Sign Code. You will recall that Staff requested a detailed signage plan for the complex previously. 19. A detailed final landscape plan should be provided as soon as possible. The highly visible areas along College and Mulberry are of particular concern given potential utility conflicts. Also, as recommended by the City Arborist, larger than standard size trees should be provided. A condition of preliminary approval was that plantings be intensified overall. 20. Pedestrian and vehicular area lighting specifications should be provided, as was required at preliminary. 21. Structural information on Phase I should be provided as was required at preliminary to provide an understanding of design constraints for Phase II. PHASE II, PRELIMINARY PUD 1. The technical concerns raised for Phase I should be noted for this submittal also. 2. The high-rise must have a complete fire protection package including sprinklers, alarms, fire command center and smoke removal. 3. A construction management plan should be provided for review to include where construction equipment will be located, where vehicles will park, r 3. The new design of the service area still appears to create some traffic problems and extends too far into the right-of-way (36' must be maintained). It now impacts two streets and little room for landscaping exists. An encroachment permit must be obtained from the City by the final document submittal date (9-19-85) to allow the service area in the right-of-way. 4. Discussions at the preliminary stage were leading to the addition of another lane adjacent to College Avenue on the north half of the site, yet this has not been shown. 5. The western ramp up to the parking deck must be a minimum of 20' wide and it appears that the arrows on the parking deck are incorrectly drawn. :)6. Engineering has pointed out that the pedestrian access ramps and sidewalks are incorrectly. drawn. The area between the curb and walk �Jshould be a minimum of 6' wide. 7. Mountain Bell has a problem with vacation of the alley. Contact Bonnie Tripoli on this. 8. John St. John of the Light and Power Utility is concerned that deceleration lanes will conflict with overhead and underground utilities. Overhead lines on Mulberry will have to be removed at the cost of the developer. He has also pointed out that the design does not recognize the duct banks on Magnolia and Remington which would cost in the range of $150,000 per frontage to relocate. Also, provide 15' easements on all streets. 9. The Water and Sewer Utility does not want trees planted over the existing water lines on College and Remington. 10. Public Service points out that there is an existing gas main in the alley that will have to be relocated. Bonnie Tripoli can provide information from Gary Huett on where the new lines should be located. A 20' x 160' utility easement at the southeast corner of the site should be provided. 11. A note should be added to the site plan that roof -top storm water detention will be provided, with detailed structural plans required prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. The Fire Department has questioned the structural adequacy of the lane between the parking deck and the Safeway. It must be designed to support a fully loaded pumper truck. This concern also relates to their ability to provide emergency services for the high-rise. Other comments are as follows: a. The fire main size must be calculated to supply both retail and residential uses. . D"". 1— 7 May 85 **e DEE DA TiNIMM— A Robinson Piersal Plaza MASTER PLAN 137' C�JWTVJEN b 9 2§-85 how the adjacent street system will be impacted, how construction of the residential phase will affect first phase operations and a phasing schedule. There is some concern from the Planning and Zoning Board that construction of Phase II may be quite disruptive to the area. ; 4. Show building height on the elevations. Please provide south and west elevations. 5. Given the magnitude of the project, Staff will continue to evaluate the building height review criteria and the appropriateness of a high-rise structure at this location (during the first part of the week of the 26th). I'll let you know if additional information is needed. Spring, summer and fall shadow impacts as well as different times of day for each season would be helpful for comparative purposes. Also, a perspective from the Magnolia/Mathews intersection should be provided. The tower design does not provide the stepping -down effect that was originally discussed at the Master Plan stage and this may be of some concern to the Board. A written discussion on the design intent would be useful to both Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. Use of masonry and emphasis of the entry area are positive features of the design, however more information on exterior materials should be noted on the plans. 6. Justification for reduction in residential parking spaces should be provided. 7. Land use data should be provided on an 8" x 11 1/2" sheet. PMT's and colored renderings are due by September 16th at noon and final documents are due by September 19th. I am available to discuss these comments at your convenience. Sincerely, / Elaine Kleckner Planner CC: Linda Hopkins, Acting Community Development Director Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator M n CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION September 30, 1985 Mr. Ed Zdenek ZVFK Architects/Planners Eleven Old Town Square, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Ed: The following is a summary of the Staff concerns on the Robinson Piersal Plaza project, as discussed on. August 16, and our comments as a result of further review of the project. Many of these items were mentioned in my Interdepartmental Review summary letter, dated August 26, 1985. 1. The still design of the southbound left turn on to Magnolia is an issue. On September 26th the DDA indicated that they were not in favor of decreasing the width of the existing planter bed in The City College Avenue to accomodate the Forester believes it can be done but turning movement. the substantial. Rick Ensdorff has also solicited cost would be input from Transfort, Fort Town, and the City Engineer on this but I don't know what their responses were. Rick will be out of town until October 7th, but I suggest we meet with him as soon as possible after his return to explore other options. We must also discuss developer participation in financing the College Avenue improvements. 2. Location of the water line had not been determined at the meeting on the 26th. Engineering has reviewed the most recent set of plans and will be talking to your engineer shortly.. I don't anticipate problems with the College Avenue alignment. 3. A revocable permit is required for the loading zone. After further discussion of this with the Assistant City Attorney, it was determined that the request will be sent to City Council after final P&Z approval. 4. The building design, College Avenue presents a believes a strong statement do feel the impact of the Avenue should be softened Avenue for,;he high-rise should with hi gh-ri se very hard, urban is appropriate building mass somewhat. A be provided. directly adjacent to edge. Although Staff at this location, we as viewed from College setback from College OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ncvcn nn.ecnir ni nniniinir_ nnncinni 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303)221-6750 n n Page 2 Ed Zdenek 5. In terms of landscaping, loss of it (trees) in the parking deck is a concern. More detail is needed on the final plan. Indicate the type of paving material for the plaza spaces. Use of tree grates on College Avenue should be specified. Staff does not feel comfortable with extensive use of Red Oak since it has not 'been particularly successful in the Fort Collins area. Selection of a more. "tried and true" species is recommended. Use of additional evergreen trees should be considered along the service area, and at the Mulberry/Remington corner for a more dramatic landscape statement. And finally, with the change in the high-rise footprint, the rooftop landscape area will require revision. 6. A basic construction management plan should be provided, as was previously requested. Several P&Z Board members have specifically requested information on how the surrounding area would be affected with and without phasing of the project. 7. Phasing of the project is a separate issue and of great concern to the P&Z Board. At this point in time, I believe that it is the consensus of the group that the project should not be phased. This is primarily due to the concern that the Phase I design by itself cannot stand on its own and is not the highest and best use of the site. Other Board concerns about phasing include construction management and potential disruption of the surrounding area. 8. A condition of preliminary approval was that you document structural information on the Safeway Store so that Staff and the Board can understand the design constraints associated with development on top of the structure. 9. Please provide the background and information source for your parking analysis. If only 30% of the units are to be used as elderly housing, we may need to reevalute the 0.5 space per unit ratio. 10. Details on lighting and signage must be included on the plans as a condition of P&Z Board approval. Attention to detail in this respect could make the Board more comfortable with a phased approach. 11. Information on type and color of exterior materials should be noted on the plans. n n Page 3 Ed Zdenek 12. Provide the perspective of the service area that we discussed. You will recall that the appearance of this area was of particular concern to the neighborhood. A higher masonry wall should be considered to adequately screen the area. 13. We appreciate your desire to contribute to "art in public places". Lets discuss this further before the P&Z hearing. 14. Note building height on all elevations. 15. The bus stop location should be shown on the plan (mid -way on the half -block with the parking structure). Provision of the appropriate pedestrian amenities and landscape revisions should be included. 16. There appear to sidewalk design/utility location conflicts on the corner of Mulberry and Remington. I am available to meet on these items at your convenience. Revisions should be submitted by October 9th. PMI's, colored renderings and full-size copies for the Board are due on the 21st and final documents are due on the 24th. Sincerely, Elaine Kleckner Planner cc: Linda Hopkins Rick Ensdorff Bonnie Tripoli Developrif nt Services Planning Department Citv of Fort Collets June 5, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Diede, Director of Engineering Services ✓Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator Rick Ensdorff, Director of Transportation Services Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator Pern Goldy, Cumberland Companies Tod Bruteig, Cumberland Companies Ed Zdenek, ZVFK Architects Burt Pedri, Safeway Manager FROM: Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director/. RE: Summary of Meeting Regarding Robigsdn-Piersal Plaza On Friday, June 2, 1989, representatives of the City, Safeway and the devel- opers of the Robinson-Piersal Plaza project met to discuss a number of out- standing issues. The following is a summary of the issues and recommend- ations for their resolution. 1. Issue: Location of traffic signal pole in sidewalk at the corner of Mulberry and College avenues. Problem: Obstructs passage of pedestrians. Solution: The relocation of the pole would cost about $6,000. Since pedes- trian volumes are relatively low, staff does not feel the situation warrants the cost of relocation. There appears to be sufficient clearance to handle current and near future pedestrian traffic. Staff will continue to monitor the situation and if a problem occurs the sidewalk area could be widened in the future to allow a minimum three foot clearance (an additional 1 1/2' foot of sidewalk is needed). If widening is needed, the additional cost of widening the sidewalk would be borne by the developer. 2. Issue: Slope of landscaped area between sidewalk and parking garage along College Avenue, Mulberry Street and Remington Street. Problem: Slope is too steep and may create a safety problem. 6A_ fn&J<_aS Lal'orre Avenue • P.O. Boy ;mil • Fort Collins, CO ,ti(152_2-0580 �O;1 Solution: The developers representatives and City staff walked the site on Friday and identified certain improvements that were needed as follows: a. The landscape wall along Mulberry Street will be raised to allow a gradual slope. The wall will be raised to allow a maximum more I foot difference between the top elevation of the wall (measured from the side of the wall closest to the sidewalk) and the public sidewalk. Additional fill dirt will be provided to level out the slope. A one -foot shelf will be graded next to the sidewalk. The landscaping will need to be removed and replanted to accomplish the raising of the wall. b. Portions of the sloped area along Remington Street and College Avenue will need additional fill. Also, a one -foot shelf will be graded next to the sidewalk. Some or all of the landscaping will need to be removed and replanted. Ed Zdenek stated he would have a design solution for City approval by Tuesday, June 6. 3. Issue: Handicapped ramps on Mulberry and Magnolia streets. Problem: Too steep. Solution:: The handicapped ramp at the westerly loading area access point will be reconstructed to City standard. The applicant's represent- ative and City staff met on site to discuss the ramp at the Mulberry Street entrance. Several alternative designs were discussed. The ramp will need to be reconstructed. The applicants should provide a design showing the final alternative for City approval prior to construction. 4. Issue: Sidewalk along College Avenue between curb cut and Mulberry Street. Problem: Too narrow. Solution: There is relatively low pedestrian volumes along this stretch of College Avenue. Staff will continue to monitor situation. If a problem occurs, sidewalk will need to be widened and trees put in grates. The cost (approximately $5,000) will be at expense of City, because the current installation meets City standards. 5. Issue: Loading area in the main driveway in front of Safeway. Problem: Retail shops are loading off College Avenue. Solution:: The loading situation was explained. The main driveway in front of Safeway is capable of handling fire trucks and other large loading vehicles. City will not allow loading off College or Magnolia. The loading zone at the rear of Safeway is "public" i.e. for the use of all tenants in the Plaza. Developer needs to work with tenants. Applicants will monitor the need for a painted loading zone in private driveway. If one is needed, the location and proposed signing will need to be submitted to the City for approval. `mar' 6. Issue: "No loading" zone signs on Magnolia. Problem: PUD condition required installation of signs. They have been taken down and replaced with "no parking" signs. Solution: City will install "no loading, standing.." signs in addition to no parking signs on Magnolia in accordance with the PUD site plan. 7. Issue: Storm drainage, Problem: Storm drainage rooftop outlet at the northwest corner of the building currently drains onto sidewalk. This is not acceptable. Solution: The contractor will provide a design solution for City approval which outlets this pipe into the underground storm drainage system. One solution is to take the pipe through the Safeway building an then outlet into drainage system. The existing outlet fixture onto plaza will be plugged. 8. Issue: Bus stop. Problem: Bus stop on College Avenue was not installed per PUD plans. Solution: Contractor will install bus stop per City specifications. City will let developer know the needed design of the bus stop. 9. Issue: Storm Drainage. Problem: The developers have changed some outlets and flow areas from approved plans. These changes have not been approved by the City. Solution: Bill Vanhorn will provide a revised storm drainage report for City review and approval. Ed Zdenek or Tod Bruteig will contact Van - horn. 10. Issue: Plaza. Problem: Chipped concrete in plaza area needs repaired. Solution: Chips in sidewalk where sawcut occurred needs repair. Epoxy grout would be acceptable. Contractor needs to provide specifications for grout for City approval. 11. Issue: Regulatory signs at the curb cuts on Remington Street and Col- lege Avenue. Problem: The existing vehicle directional signs block pedestrian passage. Solution: Signs will be mounted on single poles by contractor. 12. Issue: Loading zone at rear of store. Problem: The storage of materials is blocking use of loading area. Also, the PUD site plan was conditioned that no storage be visible from public rights -of - way. *4 ' Solution: Safeway and the developers agreed to remove all storage from the loading area. It will be relocated to the interior of the store or to another appropriate location. 13. Issue: Storage in pedestrian area in front of stores. Problem: Storage blocks pedestrian passage. PUD plan stipulated no storage, display or sell of goods in this area. Solution: Safeway and developers agreed to remove all storage and display of goods from pedestrian areas. 14. Issue: 4 parking spaces that back out onto main driveway in front of Safeway. Problem: Unsafe condition for automobile parking. Solution: It was agreed that these spaces may be used for cart sto- rage, motorcycle parking or bicycles. Safeway asked that this space be used for temporary storage and display of goods for a maximum of two times per year (spring bedding plants and x-mas trees) for a maximum of three weeks per occurrence. The Planning Staff will evaluate this request and get back to Safeway and developers. 15. Issue: Ramp area to lower parking deck. Problem: Signing of height and traffic control. Solution: A signing plan has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traf- fic Engineer. All signs must comply with sign code. 16. Issue: Underground parking deck. Problem: Circulation. Solution: A plan for a one-way system has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. This plan should be submitted as administrations change. 17. Issue: Public parking spaces in parking structure. Problem: Need to clarify use with developers and tenants. Solution: 30 public parking spaces were designated on -site to offset loss of public parking on Magnolia and Remington streets. These spaces are two hour parking now, but could be used for long term in the future, depending on need. There may be opportunity to move long term parking to lower level. These spaces will need to be maintained. The situation was discussed at length with the developer. 18. Issue: Designated employee parking. Problem: Safeway wants to remove designated employee parking from parking structure. Solution: Leave designated employee parking spaces in structure as shown on the site plan for now. Reevaluate situation in future in terms of overall downtown parking issue. The spaces may be shifted around if needed. However, the total number of employee spaces needs to remain the same. If spaces are relocated, a parking plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval. 19. Issue: Storm Drainage. Problem: Extra concrete at inlets block storm drainage flows. Solution: Contractor will chip out excess concrete. 20. Issue: Landscape median at College and Magnolia. Problem: Tiles at nose of median not installed. Solution: Contractor will install missing tiles. 21. Issue: General clean-up of site. Problem: Some areas of site need to have construction mess cleaned up. Solution: Final clean-up of site will occur after all landscaping is installed. 22. Issue: Paving of College, Mulberry and Magnolia streets. Problem: Asphalt falling apart since the developers initially paved the streets. Solution: Contractor will grind and pave streets in June, 1989. 23. Issue: Loading Zone area at rear of Safeway. Problem: Water dripping from compactor area across sidewalk and into gutter is unacceptable. Solution: The Safeway representative felt the problem occurred because of a leaking water faucet. Also, some stock persons were dumping ice into the compactor. This has been corrected. Safeway and the City will continue to monitor the situation. M MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Kleckner, City Planner FROM: Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer DATE: May 13, 1985 RE: Robinson-Piersal Plaza I have reviewed both the traffic impact study and the proposed preliminary site plan for this proposal and I offer the following comments. They are broken down into two areas. One, regarding the traffic impact analysis and second, the proposed site plan impacts. I feel that this proposal, in particular the traffic impact study, was done in a very short time span, which I think contributed to the lack of information that now exists. 1. Traffic Impact Study Analysis The following items need to be addressed for a traffic impact analysis of this site to be completed: A. There is no signal timing analysis at all included in this study. At this time College Avenue and Mulberry Street intersection is a very major traffic signalized intersection in the City of Fort Collins. This site will have a significant impact on the operation of this traffic signal. A signal timing analysis needs to be done in regards to this intersection as well as signal progression on both Mulberry Street and College Avenue in regards to this site. B. The intersection of College Avenue and Magnolia Street has been assumed in this study to have no impact on this site. I would not agree with this statement. A major flaw in this assumption is that southbound vehicles on College Avenue would use a left turn at Olive Street over to Remington Street to access the site. We also do not allow a left turn at Olive Street for southbound College Avenue. It shows a very superficial analysis of the surrounding traffic operations. C. Although a decision on the future roadway needs in the downtown area has not been determined, it is unacceptable for this project to not plan to allow for future changes, such as the widening of Mulberry Street or a possible one-way couple on Magnolia Street and Mulberry Street. It is stated in the traffic impact study that because the decision has not been made, nothing would be done along those lines. That is not acceptable. Robinson-Piersal Plazkwoomments May 13, 1985 - Page 2 M D. Traffic counts used for this study are 1983, as well as turning movements in 1985. A concern is that the volumes for this project be as up-to-date as possible. If it can be shown that the turning movements reflect current overall traffic by comparison maybe peak hours to the 1983 peak hours, thjat is acceptable. If not, current traffic counts need to be taken. The site plan indicates that at the time of final PUD, certain design questions will be answered, such as the turn bays and the installation of the median on Mulberry Street. This is not acceptable. It is very questionable that these facilities can be designed to meet our standards, and they need to be addressed at the preliminary stage so there is not an assumption through the process that they will be allowed. E. Certain assumptions are made in this traffic generation concerning the existing Safeway store such as its relocated traffic and the amount of passer-by traffic. I think some of those assumptions are not necessarily valid. An understanding of what might happen on the old Safeway site and what redistribution of traffic to the new Safeway site is reasonable. To grossly assume that 20-30% of the traffic could be attributed is somewhat confusing and needs to be defined better. Back to back left turn bays on Remington Street north of Mulberry Street are unacceptable. Currently, this operation is not in existence in the City of Fort Collins and I feel that it is a radical change from the existing patterns of left -turn lanes. It is being proposed primarily because this would be the only way that the left turn stacking can be accommodated. I do not feel that it is an acceptable option. F. There seems to be a signficant conflict between the site plan submitted and its geometric proposals and some of the proposals that are included in the traffic study. Obviously, these have to be resolved. 2. Site Plan Analysis A. There is insufficient information on the parking garage layout, its .operation, its stacking and how the ramps work. B. On Remington Street exit, approximately 40 feet is allowed for stacking of vehicles. I do not feel this is adequate. I question the drive -through in front of the store between Remington Street and College Avenue. I question it on two factors; One, its potential opportunity for cut -through traffic between these two streets and the amount of traffic which will be using this facility, and; Two, its impact on the operation of the grocery store. C. At this time, without further analysis, it is unacceptable to reduce the width of any of the surrounding street system. This includes College Avenue, Remington Street, Magnolia Street and Robinson-Piersal Plazomments May 13, 1985 - Page 3 E5 Mulberry Street. The proposed utility plan indicates curb bulges and reduces width on all these facilities. Until an overall decision is made on the needed street operation needs, these kinds of proposals are unacceptable. The distances of the proposed deceleration lanes need to be justified. As an example, the deceleration lane from Remington Street into the Remington access of the grocery store proposes a 38-40 foot transition and a 75 foot deceleration lane. If in fact deceleration lanes are needed, this is totally unacceptable. If we are talking about right turn bays, then possibly something in the vicinity of 120-150 feet might be acceptable. The same type of comment goes for the proposed deceleration/acceleration lane on Mulberry Street. Again, the distances are inadequate for deceleration lanes. Right -turn bays and their distances need to be determined by need. The operation of the service area on Magnolia Street needs to be explained and how this will work. Again, the future operation of this street, and the next twenty years operation of this street needs to be analyzed. D. This plan is proposing to remove parking from the south side of Magnolia Street. Where is the parking that is being removed going to be relocated? Parking currently is being used by adjacent property owners and businesses. In summary, the above items indicate a significant concern from a traffic standpoint. More work needs to be done on the traffic impact study to justify this proposal, in both areas, the surrounding street system as well as sight analysis. I propose that during the week of May 20th, a meeting with the applicant be held to define the issues and determine the course of action. n M CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION May 15, 1985 Mr. Ed Zdenek ZVFK Architects and Planners 11 Old Town Square, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Ed; We have received preliminary comments on the Robinson-Piersal Plaza PUD from the City Traffic Engineer. Since a substantial amount of additional information and corrections are needed, I am attaching a copy of those comments now. We need two additional copies of the Traffic Impact as soon as possible, too. You can expect additional comments on the project based on Staff's Interdepartmental Review next week. Also, I wanted to remind you that we will need a noise impact study to address general traffic impacts as a result of the store as well as the sound generated at the loading area. Sincerely,. Elaine Kleckner Planner EK/kb CC: Sam Mutch, Planning Director Rick Ensdorff, City Traffic Engineer DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION n M MEMORANDUM TO: Elaine Kleckner, City Planner FROM: Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer DATE: May 13, 1985 RE: Robinson-Piersal Plaza I have reviewed both the traffic impact study and the proposed preliminary site plan for this proposal and I offer the following comments. They are broken down into two areas. One, regarding the traffic impact analysis and second, the proposed site plan impacts. I feel that this proposal, in particular the traffic impact study, was done in a very short time span, which I think contributed to the lack of information that now exists. 1. Traffic Impact Study Analysis The following items need to be addressed for a traffic impact analysis of this site to be completed: A. There is no signal timing analysis at all included in this study. At this time College Avenue and Mulberry Street intersection is a very major traffic signalized intersection in the City of Fort Collins. This site will have a significant impact on the operation of this traffic signal. A signal timing analysis needs to be done in regards to this intersection as well as signal progression on both Mulberry Street and College Avenue in regards to this site. B. The intersection of College Avenue and Magnolia Street has been assumed in this study to have no impact on this site. I would not agree with this statement. A major flaw in this assumption is that southbound vehicles on College Avenue would use a left turn at Olive Street over to Remington Street to access the site. We also do not allow a left turn at Olive Street for southbound College Avenue. It shows a very superficial analysis of the surrounding traffic operations. C. Although a decision on the future roadway needs in the downtown area has not been determined, it is unacceptable for this project to not plan to allow for future changes, such as the widening of Mulberry Street or a possible one-way couple on Magnolia Street and Mulberry Street. It is stated in the traffic impact study that because the decision has not been made, nothing would be done along those lines. That is not acceptable. Robinson-Piersal Plaza ",mments May 13, 1985 - Page 2 E5 D. Traffic counts used for this study are 1983, as well as turning movements in 1985. A concern is that the volumes for this project be as up-to-date as possible. If it can be shown that the turning movements reflect current overall traffic by comparison maybe peak hours to the 1983 peak hours, thjat is acceptable. If not, current traffic counts need to be taken. The site plan indicates that at the time of final PUD, certain design questions will be answered, such as the turn bays and the installation of the median on Mulberry Street. This is not acceptable. It is very questionable that these facilities can be designed to meet our standards, and they need to be addressed at the preliminary stage so there is not an assumption through the process that they will be allowed. E. Certain assumptions are made in this traffic generation concerning the existing Safeway store such as its relocated traffic and the amount of passer-by traffic. I think some of those assumptions are not necessarily valid. An understanding of what might happen on the old Safeway site and what redistribution of traffic to the new Safeway site is reasonable. To grossly assume that 20-30% of the traffic could be attributed is somewhat confusing and needs to be defined better. Back to back left turn bays on Remington Street north of Mulberry Street are unacceptable. Currently, this operation is not in existence in the City of Fort Collins and I feel that it is a radical change from the. existing patterns of left -turn lanes. It is being proposed primarily because this would be the only way that the left turn stacking can be accommodated. I do not feel that it is an acceptable option. F. There seems to be a signficant conflict between the site plan submitted and its geometric proposals and some of the proposals that are included in the traffic study. Obviously, these have to be resolved. 2. Site Plan Analysis A. There is insufficient information on the parking garage layout, its operation, its stacking and how the ramps work. B. On Remington Street exit, approximately 40 feet is allowed for stacking of vehicles. I do not feel this is adequate. I question the drive -through in front of the store between Remington Street and College Avenue. I question it on two factors; One, its potential opportunity for cut -through traffic between these two streets and the amount of traffic which will be using this facility, and; Two, its impact on the operation of the grocery store. C. At this time, without further analysis, it is unacceptable to reduce the width of any of the surrounding street system. This includes College Avenue, Remington Street, Magnolia Street and Robinson-Piersal Plaza " mments May 13, 1985 - Page 3 �4W Mulberry Street. The proposed utility plan indicates curb bulges and reduces width on all these facilities. Until an overall decision is made on the needed street operation needs, these kinds of proposals are unacceptable. The distances of the proposed deceleration lanes need to be justified. As an example, the deceleration lane from Remington Street into the Remington access of the grocery store proposes a 38-40 foot transition and a 75 foot deceleration lane. If in fact deceleration lanes are needed, this is totally unacceptable. If we are talking about right turn bays, then possibly something in the vicinity of 120-150 feet might be acceptable. The same type of comment goes for the proposed deceleration/acceleration lane on Mulberry Street. Again, the distances are inadequate for deceleration lanes. Right -turn bays and their distances need to be determined by need. The operation of the service area on Magnolia Street needs to be explained and how this will work. Again, the future operation of this street, and the next twenty years operation of this street needs to be analyzed. D. This plan is proposing to remove parking from the south side of Magnolia Street. Where is the parking that is being removed going to be relocated? Parking currently is being used by adjacent property owners and businesses. In summary, the above items indicate a significant concern from a traffic standpoint. More work needs to be done on the traffic impact study to justify this proposal, in both areas, the surrounding street system as well as sight analysis. I propose that during the week of May 20th, a meeting with the applicant be held to define the issues and determine the course of action.