HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHICK-FIL-A, MINOR AMENDMENT - MA0900004 - CORRESPONDENCE - DRAINAGE REPORT (5)8) Deciduous trees are required in landscape islands (Sec 3.2.1(E)(5)). Landscape Plan must also
provide for "full tree stocking" per Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) and with other applicable provisions of
3.2.1(D)(1) and (2).
RESPONSE: The site landscaping and tree coverage is the greatest extent feasible with the site layout
and overall area.
9) Show dimensions of drive -through canopy on Site Plan.
RESPONSE: Dimensions added to Site Plan.
10) Show trash enclosure detail, i.e. materials, height.
RESPONSE: BBI - Architectural elevations of trash enclosure added, also see Civil Detail sheets.
If you have additional questions, or need clarification on these responses, please contact me at
(303) 353-3807 or Sacramento Ayala at (303) 353-3694.
Respectfully yours,
Merrick & Company
40
Todd Hepworth
Project Engineer
Page 10 of 10
3) The standard parking stall depth is indicated to be 18'. 19' is the required depth unless the stall
abuts a 6' wide sidewalk. The abutting walk is only 5' wide, therefore the walk needs to be
widened or the stall depth needs to be increase a foot.
RESPONSE: Previous annotation on plans was incorrect. Plans drawn with 19-ft stall, such that the
sidewalk has not been increased beyond the 5-ft width.
4) The menu board must be screened from the street so that it's not visible. Otherwise, it is a
regulated freestanding sign, and the center has all their signs their allowed on Horsetooth Road.
I don't believe that the proposed landscaping along Horsetooth Road extends far enough to the
east to adequately "hide" the sign, and the proposed shrubs should be at least 3' tall. However,
they shouldn't be taller than 3' because of their location close to Horsetooth Road. The
applicant may want to consider attaching the sign to the building wall so that's it's a wall sign
instead of a free-standing sign. As a wall sign, it can be angled some, however if it projects more
than 12" from the wall, then it is a projecting wall sign and is limited to 15 square feet
maximum.
RESPONSE: The menu board will be mounted to the building with the caveat of a maximum of 12"
projection taken into consideration.
5) The enhanced crosswalk proposed to connect to the existing pedestrian ramp in the existing
parking lot is fine for those customers who park in the rows abutting the existing parking lot
sidewalk. For those customers who park in the other rows, they'll be crossing the existing drive -
aisle haphazzardly. Thought should be given to do some more enhanced crosswalks to try and
better define a pedestrian traffic pattern across the drive aisle.
RESPONSE: The enhanced crosswalk is located at the existing pedestrian ramp which is also the
terminus of the existing 4-ft walk that is an internal connection within the development. The other
parking rows have no such pedestrian access walk. Crosswalks to the other parking rows would
have no connectivity to the southern portion of the development.
6) Light fixtures must be shielded and down directional. Note on plans references electrical plans.
Since those plans aren't a part of the development plan, and [add] a note stating the light
sources will be shielded and down directional. Qp KdVAe4,- +LAZ* _;* Wt-eXe �
4eRn+e- q(00 o.
RESPONSE: All light fixtures shall be shielded and down directional as required.
7) Expand the note about "signage under separate permit" to state that signage will comply with
sign code.
RESPONSE: An annotation to this effect has been added to the Site Plan.
Page 9 of 10
RESPONSE: Plans revised to use the existing service.
2) The existing sewer service to the Nate's building connects to the existing manhole located east
of the SE corner of the building. It may be advantageous to also re -use this point of connection.
RESPONSE: Plans revised to use this point of connecton.
3) Please call Roger Buffingtion at (970) 221-6854 to discuss these first two comments.
RESPONSE: We have discussed both the water connection and sewer service location with Mr.
Buffington as requested.
4) Label all sewer service clean -outs as "traffic -rated"
RESPONSE: The requested annotation has been added to the plans.
5) Add the following Standard Details to the utility plans: Water Service, 1-inch Meter Pit and
Traffic Rated Clean -Outs.
RESPONSE: The requested details have been added to the plans.
6) See red -lined utility plans for additional comments.
RESPONSE: Plan revisions have taken the redline comments into consideration with appropriate
changes.
7) Return the red -lined plans with the re -submittal.
RESPONSE: redlines returned with this submittal.
Zoning comments — Peter Barnes. 970-416-2355
1) The site plan, sheet C2.0, is too cluttered. Remove as many utility -related items and just shown
them on the utility plan and as many non -essential items/notes as possible (i.e. #'s 10, 43, 13,
14, 37, 23, 24, 17A, 178, 29, 30).
RESPONSE: Plans simplified for clarity.
2) The flag pole can't exceed 40'. Only a normal size national or state flag can be flown on it.
RESPONSE: Plans revised for 30-ft pole height. CFA will only fly national flag on this pole.
Page 8 of 10
county landfill. The following companies can provide information on methods and services
available:
a. Resource, 970-498-9663, 151 North College, Ft. Collins, CO 80524
b. Habitat for Humanity Thrift Store, 970-223-9909, 4001 South Taft Hill Road, Ft. Collins,
CO 80526
c. National Center for Craftsmanship, 970-215-4587, 1931 East County Road 58, Ft. Collins,
CO 80524
RESPONSE: The overall developer and Chick-fil-A are considering this suggestion.
Stormwater comments — Wes Lamaroue, 970-416-2418
1) Permission from Larimer County No. 2 Canal irrigation company and an off -site drainage
easement is required for the new storm sewer that is draining into the irrigation ditch.
RESPONSE: Chick-fil-A is working through a sub -consultant (TST) with the Larimer County No. 2 Canal
irrigation company for their approval and easements related to the storm sewer connection.
2) Please provide a drainage letter documenting the new impervious area with this proposal with
what is existing. Also, explain the proposed drainage for this site and provide any calculations
necessary to back up the design.
RESPONSE: Please see attached drainage letter. Previously the site drained directly as sheet -flow or
indirectly as concentrated flow through the parking area run-down into the canal. The proposed
drainage uses area drain inlets to pipe into a common inlet with a "Nyloplast Snout TM" to provide
the requisite water quality treatment for runoff from the development.
3) The City's Land Use Code requires all new development or redevelopment to provide water
quality treatment. Please provide water quality treatment for the impervious areas of the site.
This may require a meeting to coordinate what will be required.
RESPONSE: See comment response No. 2 above regarding use of an in -line water quality feature.
4) If the amount of impervious area is greater than 350 square feet a Stormwater Plant Investment
Fee will be assessed. Also, a SW Review fee will be charged in the amount of $334.47.
RESPONSE: Per the calculations provided in the drainage letter, the proposed development only
increases the impervious area by 160 square feet, below the 350 square foot threshold.
Water/Wastewater comments— Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854
1) The existing 1-inch water to the Nate's building connects to the existing 6-inch water main
approximately 6 feet north of the fire hydrant near the NW corner of the building. This service
may be re -used which will eliminate the need to trench across Horsetooth Road. A curb stop
and meter pit needs to be located in the NW part of the site in a landscaped area.
Page 7 of 10
entrance side of the structure but also include "College Ave." (no quotation marks) along with
the numerals. ALSO: As I mentioned during Staff Review, all plans must be corrected to shown
the correct address of the structure. 2006 International Fire Code 505.1
RESPONSE: Address numerals shall be installed as required on both the College Ave side and the
main entry side of the building as required. The correct address of the site is now shown in the
plans.
City Forester comments — Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361
1) Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, met on -site with David Kasprzak of BHA Design and Steve Olt of
City Current Planning to discuss the existing trees. It was determined that 4 existing trees wil
have to be removed and Tim provided David with the mitigation requirements for each tree.
RESPONSE: The noted mitigation requirement of 8 trees to replace the 4 existing trees is included
with the Landscape Plan. The proposed plan also impacts a mitigation location of one of the trees
from the overall development's mitigation plan. This tree is noted on the Landscape Plan.
Environmental Planner comments — Dana Leavitt 970-224-6143
1) Mugo Pines are not an appropriate plant for the 5' wide planting bed between the driving lane
and the sidewalk.
RESPONSE: Per the suggestion of the City Forester, this species has been changed to Curl Leaf
Mountain Mahogany at 4' on -center.
2) Existing trees on the property may require review and evaluation by Tim Buchanan, City
Forester, 224-6361. Contact Mr. Buchanan to discuss your property.
RESPONSE: See City Forester comment and response above.
3) Any trash enclosure proposed for the project shall comply with Section 3.2.5 of the Land Use
Code. Please provide elevation and details on the materials and size.
RESPONSE: The trash enclosure has been modified to show a pedestrian access door that will allow
access without opening the main enclosure gates as shown on the attached drawings. The trash
enclosure walls are to be built with CMU blocks as shown in the drawings and the gates are to be
metal frames with a 1x4 plastic lumber board finish. This plastic wood is a 100% recycled plastic
product with a weathered wood finish that is very durable and comes with a 20 year warranty.
4) Demolition of the existing structure should consider deconstruction as a means to recycle
construction materials and reduce the amount of debris being transported and dumped at the
Page 6 of 10
17) A demolition sheet in the Utility Plans may be very beneficial since there is existing
infrastructure on the site.
RESPONSE: Proposed site plan shows Chick-fil-A proposed improvements. The overall developer will
be demolishing the building and abandoning the existing utility services under their lease agreement
with Chick-fil-A.
18) From Technical Services: Scanning issues on the Site, Landscape, and Utility Plans.
RESPONSE: The redlined items regarding text/hatching have been addressed with the re -submittal
documents.
19) More detailed comments to follow with the submittal of a Utility Plan Set.
RESPONSE: Noted.
Poudre Fire Authority comments — Carle Dann 970-416-2869
1) COMMERCIAL COOKING FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM: With the production of grease -laden
vapors, an approved, automatic fire -extinguishing system shall be provided for the protection of
commercial -type cooking equipment. 2006 International Fire Code 904.2.1;609.2;904.11.2
RESPONSE: A commercial cooking fire extinguishing system will be provided in accordance with the
2006 IFC.
2) OCCUPANT LOAD SIGN
Any room or space having an occupant load of 50 or more and which is used for assembly
purposes, shall have the capacity of the room posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign
near the main exit or exit access doorway from the room or space. Such sign shall be
maintained legible by the owner or the owner's authorized agent and shall indicate the number
of occupants permitted for each room use. 2006 International Fire Code 1004.3
RESPONSE: An occupant load sign shall be posted in a conspicuous place in all rooms having an
occupant load of 50 or more as required.
3) ADDRESS NUMERALS
Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a
minimum six-inch high numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick
are not acceptable). PLEASE NOTE: Because the building will not front College Avenue (front
door will be on the south side of the building), the applicant can choose one of two options:
Either mount approved address numerals on both the College Avenue (east) side of the
structure AND on the main entrance (south) side, OR mount the address on just the main
Page 5 of 10
10) What are the dashed lines shown on the proposed sidewalks and why are they shown.
RESPONSE: The dashed lines (now removed) were indicators of the ADA route(s) through the site.
11) It appears that you are showing a loading dock area on the northwest corner of the building.
Taking access across the existing drive isle so close to Horsetooth road may cause a safety
concern. What exactly is proposed to happen in that area?
RESPONSE: Note that the vertical curb face on the entry drive extends through the "ramp" area to
discourage delivery too close to Horsetooth Road. Deliveries are expected to be routed through the
ramp at the southern end of the island between the entry drive and the drive through to minimize
any impact of parked delivery vehicles on traffic movements at the drive.
12) Please label all details on the plan clearly. As shown, the plans are very cluttered.
RESPONSE: Plans simplified for clarity.
13) Please remove all non -applicable notes from the plan.
RESPONSE: Non -applicable notes have been removed.
14) Please show the approximate limits of any proposed street cuts and patches. Also include the
City's street cut note:
Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field, but
the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair
standards.
RESPONSE: Requested annotation added to utility plan regarding the 4" fireline tapped into the 24"
main in Horsetooth Road.
15) It appears that the traffic that is stopped to order in the drive through lane will block the
pedestrian access to Horsetooth Road. Is this the case?
RESPONSE: A drive -through queuing detail is shown on the plans. A gap in queued vehicles is
provided to allow pedestrian access.
16) A signature block for the ditch company will be required on the Utility Plans since you are
affecting the canal.
RESPONSE: Signature block added to Utility Plans.
Page 4 of 10
3) Please clearly dimension all parking stalls and drive aisles. See Figure 19-7 in LCUASS for parking
stall requirements.
RESPONSE: Dimensions have been added to the Site Plan.
4) Please clearly label what is existing and what is proposed.
RESPONSE: Please see attached revised site plan - the existing features are dashed/shaded back to
improve plan clarity..
5) Please clearly label what is vertical curb and gutter and what roll-over or other type.
RESPONSE: All curb & gutter is to be vertical curb, except the portions of "0-face" curb as noted on
the site plan. Specifically, the "landing" area at the drive through window (both sides) and the
inside curb line from the drive through to the service yard /rear entrance will be "0-face" curb.
6) Please include details 701, 706, 1407, 1601, 1602, 1606A, 1607 and D10 or D11.
RESPONSE: Detail sheets are included with the attached submittal.
7) The areas shown on the landscape, site, and utility plans must match.
RESPONSE: Same base drawing used for all plan sheets, such that areas match.
8) Although it is on the site, I am concerned about the narrow drive through isle width. What does
the turning template look like for proposed traffic flow? Neither the entry or exit movements
on the drive through align with an existing drive isle. The U-turn movement from the drive -
through exit to the access on Horsetooth Road looks extremely tight and may pose a safety
concern. Also, in the drive -through lane are you proposing vertical or roll-over curb?
RESPONSE: The turning template indicates that vehicles cannot make a "u-turn" movement from
the drive -through lane to use the exit to Horsetooth Road. Therefore, "No U-Turn" signs have been
added to the signage at the drive -through exit. The site has been laid out with the City's maximum
drive -through lane width allowed (10-ft). Any deviation would require a variance. Per response #5
above, the landing area at the drive through window will be "0-face" on both sides and the inside
curb will be "0-face" from the drive through window to the service yard entry.
9) There is an area inlet shown at the drive -through entrance that looks to be directly in the wheel
path of vehicles entering — consider moving it to the center of the drive isle.
RESPONSE: Inlet relocated into center of drive aisle.
Page 3 of 10
5) The proposed Mugo Pines being proposed between the drive -through lane and West
Horsetooth Road are probably not the best plant material in this location. A good evergreen
material, to get 3' —4' high with a 4'— 6' spread, should be used to provide the necessary
screening of the drive -through from Horsetooth Road, especially providing adequate screening
of headlights in the drive -through from Horsetooth.
RESPONSE: Per the suggestion of the City Forester, this species has been changed to Curl Leaf
Mountain Mahogany at 4' on -center, annotated in plant legend as 4'-5' height and trim to 3' max
height.
6) It is my recollection from the site visit with Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, and David Kasprzak
of BHA Design that there are 4 existing trees on -site to be removed and mitigated for. Only 3
are shown on the Landscape Plan.
RESPONSE: The 4`h tree for removal/mitigation is now shown on the landscape plan.
7) Please submit revised Site & Landscape plans for review before the Minor Amendment can be
approved.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached re -submittal.
Light & Power comments — Doug Martine, 970-224-6152
1) Applicant will be responsible for Light & Power costs. These are estimated to be $9,000 to
relocate the electric transformer plus $2,100 per additional 100 amps of electric service (over
the existing 600 amps). Please contact Light & Power Engineering, at 221-6700, to coordinate
power requirements.
RESPONSE: This information has been forwarded to the site Electrical Engineer (Kurzynsky &
Associates), who will contact Mr. Martine. Service demand will be for 800 Amps.
Engineering comments — Andrew Carney, 970-221-6605
1) Engineering will require the submittal of Utility Plans for this project. Please refer to the
Requirements for Utility Plans checklist in Appendix E-4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS) for what information will be required.
RESPONSE: Please see Utility Plans attached with the current submittal.
2) Please clearly label all on -site details as: "on -site."
RESPONSE: All details have been labeled as "on -site," with the exception of the fire line connection
(trenching & trench restoration) to the main in Horsetooth. See sheets C4.0 through C4.4.
Page 2 of 10
Nod MERRICK'
❑❑❑ BUILDING QUALITY SOLUTIONS
Merrick & Company
2450 S. Peoria Street
Aurora, CO 80014-5475
Phone: 303.751-0741 / Fax: 303-751-2581
www.merrick.com
Steve Olt
Project Planner
Planning, Development and Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 N. College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins CO 80522-0580
Re: Chick-fil-A @ Cottonwood Centers, Minor Amendment #0900004
Response to February 12, 2009 Comments
Current Planning Comments — Steve Olt, 970-221-6341
1) The Site Plan as submitted is really more of a utility plan with too much unrelated information.
Please see the requirements for a Site Plan and an example of a Site Plan, both being forwarded
to the applicant.
RESPONSE: The Site Plan has been simplified in accordance with the provided sample.
2) How wide is the planting strip between the drive -through lane and the sidewalk along the west
side of the property?
RESPONSE: Three feet (3') from edge of walk to adjacent back of curb (3'-6" from back of walk to
flowline of curb & gutter). An annotation to this effect has been added to the Site and Landscape
Plans.
3) Signature blocks for the Owner, Notary Public (or Attorney), and the Director of Planning must
be included on the Site Plan. See examples.
RESPONSE: Signature blocks have been added to the Site Plan.
4) Applicable Tree Protection and Landscape Materials & Maintenance information from the Land
Use Code (Section 3.2.1) are being forwarded to the applicant. This information must be
included on the Landscape Plan.
RESPONSE: Requested information added to Landscape Plan as a second sheet, L1.1.
An Employee -Owned Corporation
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
a ENGINEERING MARCNITECTURE a DESIGN -BUILD ■ GEOSPATIAL SOLUTIONS 0 SURVEYING