HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTH COLLEGE MARKETPLACE - FDP - 43-08/A - CORRESPONDENCE - (10)® e6
The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be
thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil
amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to
a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a
rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000)
square feet of landscape area.
• . A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as
noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way.
This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city
property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure
to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on
certificate of occupancy.
• The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at
the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been
installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is
required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the
City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of
occupancy for future phases of the development.
Steve Olt rNorth College Market Place Page 1
From: Tim Buchanan
To: Steve Olt
Date: 10/20/2009 11:51:36 AM
Subject: North College Market Place
Hi Steve,
These are my comments for North College Marketplace second filing landscape plan.
1. Landscape Notes need to be added, which include the attached three notes.
2. Street trees along Willox at the entrance to the development need to be labeled.
3. Purple Robe Locust is attacked by the locust bore so a substitution should be considered by the
applicant.
Tim
Tim Buchanan, City Forester
413 S. Bryan
Fort Collins CO 80521
ph 970-221-6361
fx 970-221-6849
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at 221-6341.
Yo s Truly,
*tevel
City Planner
cc: Marc Virata
Planning file #43-08A
Page 7
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 145 Created: 10/21 /2009
[10/21/09] The Landscape Plans have line over text & text over text issues. See red -lines.
Topic: Plat
Number: 141 Created: 10/21 /2009
[10/21/09] The boundary & legal close.
Number: 142 Created: 10/21 /2009
[10/21/09] The reception numbers in the legal & on the plat, need to be added prior to filing.
Number: 143 Created: 10/21 /2009
[10/21/09] Please add the missing easement dimension(see redlines) on the plat.
Number: 147 Created: 10/21 /2009
[10/21/09] Please add bearings & distances on all easements, new & existing. The plat needs
to "stand alone".
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 144 Created: 10/21 /2009
[10/21/09] The Site Plans have line over text issues. See red -lines.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 140 Created: 10/21 /2009
[10/21/09] Please check the separation distances between water/sewer lines (including fire
hydrants and meter pits) and trees and shrubs.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
Number: 2 Created: 12/19/2008
[10/l/09] Applicant's response letter states that the buildings have been labeled, but I don't
see any such labeling on the Overall Site Plan.
[3/30/09] At final plan submittal, label the buildings on the Overall Site Plan. i.e. Bldg. A to
match building A on Sheet 8.
[12/19/08] In addition to the Site Plan sheets submitted, an Overall Site Plan should be
provided at a smaller scale showing the entire site on one sheet. It makes it much easier to
reference to ensure that nothing is missed. The Site Plan sheets submitted with this round are
difficult to review since parts of buildings are continued on the next sheet. Also, it would be
helpful to label the buildings in some manner (i.e. bldg 1, 2, 3, etc.).
Be sure and return all red -lined plans when you re -submit.
Page 6
Topic: General
Number: 156 Created: 10/23/2009
[10/23/09] City staff met this afternoon to discuss Grape Street. Representatives were
present from Real Estate, the Attorney's Office, Advance Planning and Planning (now known
as Community Development and Neighborhood Services). The following conclusions were
made based upon the development proposal shown for Grape Street:
The site plan as presently shown utilizes Grape Street in a manner that is problematic
for several reasons:
* The fast food aisle is a private use on public property.
* The construction of curb, retaining wall and landscaping along Grape Street (just
east of the north -south drive aisle that connects to the properties to the north) is an
encroachment and constricts the width of the drive aisle along Grape Street to less
than 20' which is the required minimum width to provide legal access to the parcels
on the north side of Grape Street.
* The placement of trash enclosures are a private use on public property.
The Developer's desire to utilize Grape Street in the manner described above requires
that the Developer begin discussions with Real Estate Services (Helen Matson 221-
6276) in order to utilize Grape Street, with the Developer purchasing City property
needing to take place. This will ultimately require an action by City Council. In addition
the concern of having legal 20' access to the properties on the north side of Grape Street
will need to be addressed (by either keeping 20' clear through altering the design or
perhaps obtaining additional easement on the north side of Grape Street to make a total
20' width).
Given the potential timing aspects of discussion with City Real Estate and City Council,
if there are time concerns, the Developer may wish to pursue an alternative site plan that
does not utilize Grape Street at this time. The site plan (and development agreement if
appropriate) can then be amended to reflect the utilization of Grape Street upon the
completion of discussions with City Real Estate and the appropriate action by City
Council.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 148 Created: 10/21 /2009
EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT: I don't see a reason for including an EAE on the
new, separate document (by outlots D and E),I think you can remove the EAE.
Department: Technical Services Issue Contact: Jeff County
Topic: Elevation Plan
Number: 146 Created: 10/21 /2009
[10/21/09] The elevation plans have line over text issues. See red -lines.
Page 5
either in fee or as right-of-way. The timing of the City potentially abandoning Grape Street
would need to then be coordinated with the project's entitlement accordingly.
Number: 133 Created: 4/7/2009
[10/9/09] There still appears to be a little discrepancy with regards to the sidewalk. The
horizontal control plan appears to have this shown as being constructed with this filing, while
the overall plan seems to show this as existing (being built with the 1 st filing).
[4/7/09] The construction and site plan drawings should clearly discern what improvements
are to be done specifically with the 2nd filing from the I st filing (such as a portion of
sidewalk on Willox and a drive approach) and the road project.
Number: 136 Created: 10/5/2009
[10/5/09] The two driveways out to Willox Lane running parallel to College Avenue that are
not tied to the roundabout directs impervious area over a public sidewalk in excess of
LCUASS criteria. The use of a sidewalk chase should be implement or perhaps the creation
of a curb break on the east inflow curb and gutter section to outlet into the adjoining green
space?
Number: 137 Created: 10/6/2009
[10/6/09] The Grape Street area shows the placement of trash enclosures partially within the
Grape Street property along with a fast food drive aisle, retaining walls and landscaping.
These along with the proposed easements need approval through the City. Note that even if
the City allows the encroachment of the trash enclosure and retaining wall, there may be
additional concerns with the trash enclosure and retaining wall being located over proposed
easements, especially if a building permit for these are needed.
Number: 138 Created: 10/9/2009
[10/9/09] The construction drawings need to clearly show property lines on all sheets. The
aforementioned comment on the trash enclosure, retaining wall, drive aisle and landscaping
being within Grape Street cannot be discerned on the construction plan set due to the lack of
the information on property lines specific to the 2nd Filing (and the indication of the Grape
Street boundary as well as 1 st Filing boundary).
Number: 139 Created: 10/13/2009
[10/13/09] I'm understanding that the developer maybe interested in not constructing the
standard 6" thick concrete for sidewalk in public right-of-way and instead using 5.5" thick
concrete with fiber mesh. I'm understanding there appears to be support on the Capital
Projects side. Should this be pursued specific to this project, a variance request should be
initiated by the developer's consultant engineer. Alternatively, if the capital project has the
City Engineer granting this variance on the road project and expresses it may also apply to
the development project, that would be acceptable.
Page 4
under the assumption that the drive approaches out to the public streets would be built with
the road project though the construction drawings seem to show this will be done by the
project. It seems that the plans should be revised to reflect the drive approaches being built
with the project.
[4/7/09] It should be verified that the road scope of work is coordinated.
[12/30/08] Will the street trees along College and Willox be part of the road project or be
installed with the development?
Number: 47 Created: 12/31 /2008
[10/21/09] Some of these comments have not been addressed. Utility plans were not
provided for review.
[4/8/09] Technical Services has provided the following updated comments:
I. Boundary closes.
2. Scanning issues on Site, Landscape & Utility Plans.
3. All easements need to be locatable - add bearings & distances.
4. Filing #2 construction plans have benchmark 42-01 described incorrect.
5. College & Willox improvement plans shows benchmark 4201 incorrectly.
[12/31/08] Technical Services provided the following comments:
1. Boundary closes.
2. Please add "Being a Replat Of' and Section, Township, Range information to the
heading.
3. Minor line over text (scanning) issues on Site and Landscape Plans.
4. Bearing and distances missing. See red -lines. (The plat needs to "stand by itself' and
show all bearings and distances.)
Number: 87 Created: 1 /5/2009
[10/9/09] The Grape Street area really needs to have dialogue between the City and the
Developer. The drawings had not been clear in indicating and distinguishing the City's
ownership of Grape Street from the development proposal. Property lines and labeling of
areas outside of the developer's owned property needs to be clearly shown on all sheets.
The placement of retaining walls, landscaping, a fast food drive aisle, and trash dumpsters
are all apparently within the City's Grape Street but I'm not aware of what sort of discussions
have taken place between the Developer and the City with the City either agreeing to this, or
perhaps should the City be divesting interest in ownership in all or a portion of Grape Street
with the City retaining appropriate easements?
The response letter indicates three legal descriptions "have been recorded along Grape
Street". I assume this means these legal descriptions have been prepared and are proposed. If
these easements are desired (and need to be recorded prior to the plat) the Developer should
really be in discussions with the City in order to move this process.
[4/7/09] Carried over for further discussion.
[1/5/09] We should have further dialogue regarding Grape Street and how the proposed
development affects its legal status. As Grape Street is apparently not right-of-way but
owned by the City, the City may take the position that with the proposed development and
change to the access control plan, that there is no benefit in the City owning the property
Page 3
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: Lighting Plan
Number: 95 Created: 1/5/2009
[10/23/09] Plan still contains spillage into buffer areas.
[4/7/09] Plan still shows spillage beyond property line in several locations. Add the correct
property line to the plan, per comments on the red -line. It is very difficult to read the fixture
number with the foot-candle numbers superimposed on the fixture number.
[1/5/09] Light spillage from north and east sides of the King Soopers building encroaches
into Out Lot B, which is considered City owned property. Foot-candle levels shall be at 0.0
along the property boundaries adjacent to Out Lot B. Night light pollutions is not allowed to
occur within the wetlands/natural areas adjacent to this development.
Number: 96 Created: 1 /5/2009
[ 10/23/09] Do not see any table that denotes inclusion of house side shield on fixtures.
[4/7/09] Luminaire schedule does not identify said fixtures as having a house side shield.
[1/5/09] Pole mounted fixtures A27, A28, A29, A30, A52 and D21 are required to have
houseside shields on fixtures as used on fixture F. This is required to reduce/eliminate
potential impacts due to the fixture itself being visible from within the wetlands/natural areas.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 149 Created: 10/23/2009
[10/23/09] The buildings on the Overall Site Plan must be labeled (i.e.: Bldg. 2, Bldg. 3,
etc.) to match the designations on the other Site Plan sheets.
Number: 150 Created: 10/23/2009
[ 10/23/09] The square footage of each building must be included within the building on each
sheet showing building(s).
Number: 151 Created: 10/23/2009
[10/23/09] On the Cover Sheet of the Site Plan, under LAND USE TABLE, it shows a
Maximum Building Height of 2 stories. The Building Coverage is shown to be 167,582
square feet. If there are to be some 2-story buildings with habitable space on the second floor
then the Total Square Footage in the shopping center could be more than the Building
Coverage. The Site Plan must address this.
Number: 152 Created: 10/23/2009
[10/23/09] On the Overall Site Plan, the trail shown going north of the shopping center and
across the Larimer and Weld Canal is no longer going to occur. Please remove that section of
the trail from the Site Plan.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata
Topic: Engineering
Number: 39 Created: 12/30/2008
[10/9/09] Carrying this comment over after showing the 2nd Filing construction drawings to
Kyle Lambrecht in Engineering Capital Projects. It appears that they have been operating
Page 2
City of Fort Collins
BHA Design, Inc.
c/o David Kasprzak
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Date: 11 /2/2009
Staff has reviewed your submittal for NORTH COLLEGE MARKETPLACE, SECOND
FILING, FINAL PLANS, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: General
Number: 154 Created: 10/23/2009
[10/23/09] Both the Site Plan and Landscape Plan sets include Approximate Limits of
Construction, but neither set clearly shows the actual North College Marketplace property
boundaries. Both sets of plans must include the property boundaries and label them as such,
as set forth in:
* Submittal Requirements: Final Plan Review;
- 5) Final site plan, showing the following information:
- 5)b) Lot lines, easements, public rights -of -way as per subdivision plat.
Because the boundary line was not clearly shown and labeled along the south side of Grape
Street it was not fully understood what private development improvements were being
proposed outside of the North College Marketplace development boundary and in Grape
Street (City -owned property). The developer must work with the property owners
(Breckenridge, Mayes, Adamich) on the north side of Grape Street and City Real Estate
Services to coordinate assurance of continued access to their properties without being
encumbered by the shopping center improvements on the City -owned property that
includes Grape Street, if allowed.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: General
Number: 155 Created: 10/23/2009
[10/23/09] Adjust LOD on all plan drawings -Site, Landscape and Utilities, per the red -line
Landscape Plan.
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Landscape Plan
Number: 153 Created: 10/23/2009
[ 10/23/09] Sheet 16 of the Landscape Plan must include the standard required Plant Notes,
Tree Protection Specification Notes, and Water Use Table (see Examples, included). Also,
Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, has forwarded some notes that must be included on Sheet
16.
Page 1
__ __ .... .. Page 1 of 1
From: Steve Olt
To: brappe@lovelandcommercial.com; Christina Vincent; David Kasprzak;
eholsapple@lovelandcommercial.com; Helen Matson; Marc Virata
Date: 11/2/2009 4:55 PM
Subject: North College Marketplace
Attached is the most current City staff comment letter for North College Marketplace, Second
Filing - Final Plans. Of particular note is comment #154 at the top of Page 1, under Current
Planning, which states:
Because the boundary line was not clearly shown and labeled along the south side of
Grape Street it was not fully understood what private development improvements were being
proposed outside of the North College Marketplace development boundary and in Grape
Street (City -owned property). The developer must work with the property owners
(Breckenridge, Mayes, Adamich) on the north side of Grape Street and City Real Estate
Services to coordinate assurance of continued access to their properties without being
encumbered by the shopping center improvements on the City -owned property that includes
Grape Street, if allowed.
Steve
file://C:\Documents and Settings\solt\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 11/2/2009