HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA EXPANSION - MAJOR AMENDMENT - 26-97A - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)9. Please add the 100-year HGL, the outfall WSEL, and a note for all storm sewers to be
inspected by the City of Fort Collins to the storm sewer profiles.
RESPONSE: STOpM SpWpp ppOrIL. 5 INCI Up7 1'0 COWC1 I�YIpAUUC Gip LINp5, OUf�
WMT 5U�FAC� pL MT10N5. ANP TNT NOTE A5 5MA 12 VOV�.
10. Please show the proposed grading on the Drainage plan. Since this drawing is
becoming cluttered, please consider removing the existing grading, enlarging the
drawing, or separating the Drainage from the Erosion Control.
RESPONSE: T � pt OpO5pp CMING 15 SHOWN ON THp p7 AINAG� p,AN, ANp TNT pI AN HA5
PFp N MAPS �A5U TO SAP.
11. Please use Fort Collins' current set of General Notes.
RESPONSE: TI f RAWIN65 NOW 5HOW T f CUQ; M CITY OF FOkr COLLIN5 GMM NOT�5,
12. Please show the drainage features on the Landscape Plan to verify that there will be
no conflicts, such as trees placed over storm sewers, etc.
RESPONSE: THp LANp5CApp PLAN 5HOW5 ALA pC OpO5p12 pp
AINAGp ppATU S.
Erosion/Sediment Control Comments:
1. Plan is OK.
Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional comments.
Pedwso°MA't •doc Page 3 of 3
3. City of Fort Collins requires detention ponds to be sized using the FAA method,
rather than the PULS method 'Please revise required pond size using the FAA
method and the current city of Fort Collins hydrograph. Another option is to run both
methods and prove to us that the PUTS method is as equally conservative.. FAA
calculations show that even at the larger release rate, approximately two andia half
times the given storage is required forDetention'Pond 0-1. Also, please address the
emergency spillway. Provide sizing calculations and discuss wherethe P-MOD basin
flows will go if the inlet to the CSPs becomes clogged.
RESPONSE: ALL FONb ANALY51�5 NAVE PM bON� 1,151% TNT FM W012, AL50,
MUNCY OWp I,OW5 ffOM &I, M51N5 MvV Pt��N A1201 55�1:9 IN
4. Please provide wautperr quuailliity call culationsp�irtthe underground storage facility.
RESPONSE: TAM 15 NO 1,0NG1�1� ANY UNI2Ef; WUNf7 5TRA6A . MtQUALITY CALCUI ATION5
NAVE I rct N MOVM12 `Of TNT ppOp05N7 POW
5. Please address the emergency spills for each basin. Provide spillway calculations for
the event of clogged inlets and show locations and cross sections in the plans.
RESPONSE: �MMC NCY 5plLLWAY CALCULA110N5 KAV� [3�N pf OVIp7 [g pot; ALL 6A51N5,
6. Please provide details of all outlet orifices, as these are within the proposed storm
sewer system and must be mounted in the correct pipes. For example ilic orifice for
Pond X-1-must be mounted in the incoming pipe to not detain P-MOD flows as well,
but the Pond X-2 orifice must be iwthe downstream end.
RESPONSE: PM L5 ON ALL FkOp05Fn OQNC�5 NAVE 13 N ppOVII2FP TO AVOID COW1,1510N
ANI2fO �NSUI�T TH�K MM IN5TALLA110N,
7. Please verify the tying in of the proposed grading along the west edge of the site.
T f FWFO51� I Gp.Ar]ING AT ALL MOr�M 60UNPME5 COMCtY TT5 INTO T-f
RESPONSE: U1511% 6WUNP. A 5M&I, STAINING WALL HA5 ��N AX7 P ALONG TNT
NOMI;N ANn M5TM f OUNf7At Y TO pNSU TNF U1511% CKOUMP 15 MST.
8. Please revise the 56-foot PVC storm sewer. This needs to be encased since it is
above the water line (even though it is 18 inches above it). Also, with the encasement
and the fact that it is within a driveway, it -is recommended to use RCP instead of
PVC.
RESPONSE: IT NAS (3��NQU�ST�n 6Y �OG�� 6Up�INGTON THAT pVC STOC;M S�W> t; plp�
13� U5Fn AT TH15 CW551N6 50 TMr ONE CONTINUOU5 20-FOOT L�%TH OF
I'M CAN ff CAN 'M19 A60V� TNF WATM INF,
Pedcam MA-Ldoc
Page 2 of 3
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort CoUlm
1000000
Current Plannin¢
DATE: March 21, 2001 TO: Stormwater
PROJECT: #26-97A PEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA — MAJOR
AMENDMENT — TYPE II LUC
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no
later than the staff review meeting:
April 18, 2001
Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference
1. Please provide an analysis to show that allowing a release rate of 1.32 efs/acre.rather
than the .S cfs/acre per the master plan does not make the situation worse in the area,
or release at the master plan rate. Overtopping Mason Street and flowing behind
Target sounds like it is making the situation worse.
RESPONSE:
M AIT� NOW rY.�A51N6 AT THE MA5r� t'I.AN M OF 05 Cp5/ ACIT.
2. Please provide drainage easements for all detention ponds and show on the replat.
RESPONSE: TIf TpLAT CONTAINS &L N�Cp55MY �ASWM5, cc, stews oct
Name (please print) Wes Lam. abrtJw-1 tea.
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
,Plat _Site 'Drainage Report &Other_&yd4.Ws
)( Utility XRedline Utility ,Landscape a���
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: March 21, 2001 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #26-97A PEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA — MAJOR
AMENDMENT — TYPE II LUC
All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no
later than the staff review meeting:
April 18, 2001
Ngte- Please identify your redlines for future reference
Pederson Auto P are. Expansion A ril 27, 2001
1. Need to label the parking stall dimensions. %k, 7ti6 rLrcpt
2. Is the exiting fenced in area remaining or is this going away? Thf) fblc(, o-ALt ov t .rv�2 D
3. Need to show the building envelope on the site, utility plans and the plat o f-
4. Where you are putting in new sidewalk on Mason Street it needs to be 6 feet. We will accept the 5-foot walk if it is existing, but
new sidewalk needs to meet standards. MN 5 t4+5 OkE.%,1 TZF)v�ty jD f,' v. •VCL
5. Clarify what the future bridge is to be. I thought you wanted to span Mason Street when I read the note, but upon further review
I don't think that is what you are intending. Nt> ` (Mf t: C16LC ^ rY\5 f t£rt lk r'U VL-U ffcK t'iy-ts
6. Need to use the new general notes that are within the new street standards. We are going to be adding a few notes and trying to
remove some of the repetitive ones. Hopefully we will have that together by next week. I will send you a copy when that is put
together. JV%. t_lt k) 6U_O°_l tACflg5 rlav &gy1v 1, - Crt 11% (5-ckk jz-_ 511UbIr
7. The grade lines on the west side of the property adjacent to the railroad do not tie into existing grade. <;W te{;-thstU 60-rttiaif, f1.nr,
8. What is to be landscaped area and what is paved? Within the area of the future building location - which is not labeled on the
utility plans it is not clear what is what If don't want to revise the utility plans when they want to build this detached building it
needs to be shown and noted on the utility plans- it may be as arate sheet or something that shows the layout with the future
building. � tZt l,lsaj fL im-is �c(z- U,h$a etc:,�Lo7
9. Need to locate the driveway — provide a dimension from the property line. '-tv rLjv l firtcf.T 4 Forz Otetvt
10. Need to show the anAffiat needs to be patched for the driveway cut `)tfb t°UttA `jVUT 3 o f I fob tt*o .
11. Provide deWl 16-116-2\\ , 17&, C)LIAm— S'tttT `
12. Need to proyidez%1iLof the textured and painted x-walks that are shown on the site plan.
13. Use detail 7-299 for the driveway cut. Identify t - 8 inches min, identify the radius and width of the drive as well on this detail.
The drive radii should be 20 feet per 8.2.9.A Table 8-2. 'Dt'Wut✓ p-ftUl - z MAW rltt7 F6F CJpl'rsmy..1 "d91I
14. Need to identify the stormwater easements that are needed on the plat with these improvements. 1�ft f AST
15. Showing two lots and labeling as such, but have a note that the lot line goes away with the plat. Where is the division between
the two_LQts then? <,A, fLnT
Name (please print) XCHECK HERE IF YOUTO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
P"Nat O9&te _Drainage Report _Other M—k
, GCUtility 'xRmiline Utility ✓�bandscape City of Fort Collins
appurtenances. Provide details for the adjustments (i.e. Manhole
adjustment, ARV vent pipe relocation, C.P. test station relocation,
etc.).
➢ Maintain a minimum of 5 feet of separation between existing sanitary
l i W mce t- c „-�Li Ts / vlio iy tS
sewer trunk and proposed storm sewer inlet. vJvnii�i 5' Of 7� rw�ST.';Av0=r-
(�
➢ See site, landscape and utility plans for othePCIr c�omments.
Date: 23 Signature:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISI S
X PLAT X SITE _DRAINAGE REPORT _OTHER
X UTILITY X REDLINE UTILITY X LANDSCAPE
City of Fort Collins
AV
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: March 21, 2001 DEPT: Water & Wastewater
PROJECT: #26-97A PEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA -
MAJOR AMENDMENT — TYPE II (LUC)
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, April 18, 2001
➢ Show all proposed and existing water/sewer lines on the landscape
plans and provide the required landscape/utility separation distances.
➢ Show all water/sewer lines and their associated appurtenances on the
site plan. Provide a legend, which defines all symbols used.
Maintain a 10 feet minimum separation between all light poles and
w� tor/sewer mains. 9 bwsT coo 7waS pLnn� fo,-sYMrbLs
1 W IV-C; t-Lv v, [fi, ue� f'�+u��� �(`4 m5w lILA k1 A 10 c LAI-r f lw-
➢ Site plan indicates'a future budding to tie north ofEthe existing
building. Will water and sewer services be needed for this future
building? �t)5, jir i .SCi+r'lc to , sovwrc ori a q LkT-( nLAtl
➢ Landscape plan indicates an irrigation system will be needed for the
proposed landscape. Will a new water service be needed for the
AV'Jproposed irrigation system? uPLN s 3�>:` e ' `d'E'c �'�,'
➢ Has the existing 42-inch water main been potholed? Pothole this '(V7
main now and provide pothole information on the utility plans. R%wP-
➢ Clearly show and label all existing water/sewer mains and theirt��
associated appurtenances on the overall utility plan. Clearly define all
adjustments required on the existing water and sewer main
,kftVL ti }M VTLuT'( iLAO OWIJ hCtqVXJ of wAStAo- r %oLbr; NWtc 1"�
c Hfs-c�-f tits sirt�;r►Ts .
Sincerely,
*evet
Project Planner
cc: Engineering/Sheri Wamhoff
Stormwater Utility/Wes Lamarque
Zoning/Jenny Nuckols
Water & Wastewater/Jeff Hill
Traffic Operations/Ward Stanford
Transportation Planning/Kathleen Reavis
Northern Engineering
King Surveyors, Inc.
Project File #26-97A
Stormwater
28. There are IQts`of storm drainage constraints on this site. `7�pr-M w i% -'�
AGt�t'-vs cv L13 fjti1&Lt- C tcvP�u-1+lcrf"u k-LTO 3jiCW'� ACCIz VtgO_ Tb
>u�bM � Tj NL
29. he necessary easements must be pprov�ided on the subdivision plat.
t4it 15 OLLT m t4fT%-Tv c u1°ti�RS ram( ot; "5 t�Gsur�M�ijRL
30. What are the requirements for the underground storage? uSTot
►-1A5 VLc,N t;ttr�l,�,nFW
Transportation Planning
31. A bicycle/pedestrian connection for employees of this facility must be made to
the Mason Street Multi -Modal Corridor. -iRu iA-A5 C7rti 0 ftCe tDl Six'�'cr
%R1J
Natural Resources
32. A wetland delineation must be done and submitted for review if there are
wetlands on this site. f i/,P\
33. If there are prairie dogs on this site they must be relocated or humanely
eradicated prior to construction. N/p,
34. A bicycle/pedestrian connection for employees and customers of this facility
must be made to the Mason Street Multi -Modal Corridor. L,)c isf
This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be
forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing
agencies.
Under the development review process and schedule there is a 90 day plan revision
submittal time -frame (by the applicant to the City) mandated by the City. The 90
day turnaround period begins on the date of this comment letter (April 27, 2001)
prepared by the project planner in the Current Planning Department. In this case,
revisions must be submitted no later than Thursday, July 26, 2001, by 5:00 p.m.
Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and
outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later
than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of
the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be
determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision.
If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an opening on the
agenda.
Please return all drawings red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The
number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the
attached Revisions Routing Sheet. You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a
meeting to discuss these comments.
15. Matt Baker of the Street Oversizing (Engineering) Department indicated that
the estimated street oversizing fee for this new development, based on the TIS,
is $59,993.28 (563 x 0.32 x $333).
16. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort indicated that they have no concerns or
comments regarding this development proposal.
The following comments were given at the Staff Review Meeting on April 18, 2001:
Engineering
17. Is the existing fenced area on the current Pedersen Auto Plaza site being
moved? `(Y5. A Nw ftOctU A" l5 ('t 4Yt5vu aT TNT coe-ottc
OF Laf 12 5tr� trLA-14S Po(L bbu �(sATtorS
18. What are the widths and depths of the parking spaces? 4)W f`f istV5iTVrLA-"
19. New sidewalks must be to current City standards. A 6' 0015 - t5 IrRot9t�
i s "& .� fi� 1 F 1Xt t�TY f t j VLk' .
20. More information (and details) is needed on the "future" bridge connection across
the detention pond. Trlti pert fit i�tt�rlll�it�
21. Information on and around the future building pad site is not clear.
G f4�V15'E�U CLAN fUC— C-LKt'L 1fkC^"Ctc (3 .
22. The radius cut at the entry drive requires a modification of the standard in the
LUC. The applicant must submit a request for the modification and City staff will
support an r commend approval of the request. `rv* I F >Vo5� CAUtt Pq 1
PAt*: T LUi, �tRNtaRI �
23. The proposed grading on the grading plan for this expansion does not tie into the
existing grading along the railroad tracks. c� hfA-utv-j6 r'L/iAO fob TIC Tb
t-*-.5T 10& cD GU Q.i
24. There are issues with the subdivision plat. T 5,D t55U(5 OWL pM etvot��U
to TM 5
25. The developer and the City will be redoing the development agreement.
26. The information on the Site Plan is unclear. What changes to the approved and
recorded Pedersen Auto Plaza Site Plan are being affected by this current
request? It is important for everyone looking at the Site Plans in the future to
clearly know what is set forth on which Site Plan. 4AC fWI*X) 5ITS fL►oJ
fall' ctwt -tf�c1�jL; J
27. The utilities for the proposed future building are not shown on the utility plans.
Therefore, a utility plan will have to be submitted later with request for approval
of this pad site and building. tljtLt ilr S Af-t t Dl� 5t�w vJ ors Tft f'LAi45
(!of- TNt: fuTUF-t, 'juZoo- rrw .
6. A copy of the comments received from Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -
lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Jeff, at 221-
6674, if you have questions about his comments.
7. A copy of the comments received from Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering
Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -
lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Sheri, at
221-6750, if you have questions about her comments.
8. A copy of the comments received from Wes Lamarque of the Stormwater Utility
is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments are on red -lined plans
and reports that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Wes, at
221-6681, if you have questions about his comments.
9. Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company of Colorado indicated that the
customer should contact Rick Traynor of PSC, at 225-7827, to verify that existing
gas service and meter(s) are adequate to meet future load requirements.
10. Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Broadband (cable TV) indicated that they have no
concerns or comments regarding this development proposal.
11. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office indicated that they have no concerns or
comments regarding this development proposal.
12. Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department indicated that they have no
concerns or comments regarding this development proposal.
13. Laurie D'Audney, representing the City's Water Conservation concerns,
indicated that she has no concerns or comments regarding this development
proposal.
14. Doug Moore of the Natural Resources Department offered the following
comments:
a. A wetland delineation is needed if wetlands occur on this site.
N/ b. If prairie dogs exist on this site they must either be relocated or humanely
eradicated prior to any construction (including overlot grading).
Tits t6 f c. A pedestrian and bicycle connection is needed to the Mason Street Multi-
r b �31 t 111rFb Modal Corridor to the west. The connection should provide direct access
Ida to and from this facility for employees and customers.
Please contact Doug, at 224-6143, if you have questions about these comments.
3. Rick Lee of the Building Inspection Department offered the following
comments:
a. From the information provided it appears that this building is getting rather
large in size. Please verify the maximum allowable area per Table 5-B
and if an area separation wall would be required. Typically, vehicle repair
is found in S-3 occupancies, but the need for open flame and some
chemicals may require this to be an H occupancy, which has some
special requirements.
b. Please find attached to this comment letter the various codes that the Fort
Collins Building Department will enforce.
Please contact Rick, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments.
4. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department offered the following
comments:
a. The existing electric on the site will need to be relocated, at the owner's
expense.
b. Light & Power development charges will apply for the additional property
being developed, and for additional electric capacity (if applicable).
Please contact Doug, at 224-6152, if you have questions about these comments.
5. The Technical Services Department offered the following comments:
a. The subdivision plat does not close and the legal description does not
close. Neither match each other.
b. The name in the Dedication Statement does not match the Title of the
subdivision plat.
C. Some curve data is missing.
d. What is the division of Lot 1 / Lot 2 if the lot line goes away?
Please contact Technical Services, at 221-6588, if you have questions about
these comments.
Commui. f Planning and Environmental `,_.vices
Current I'lanning
Citv of Fort Collins
April 27, 2001
Dana Lockwood
Lockwood Architects
420 S. Howes Street, Suite 101 B
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Dear Dana,
Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Pedersen Auto Plaza Expansion,
Major Amendment to the Development Plan proposal that was submitted to the City
on March 21, 2001, and would like to offer the following comments:
This request, being a proposal to expand the existing facility that was approved
and constructed as the Pedersen Auto Plaza, is a Type II - Planning and Zoning
Board review under the City's Land Use Code (LUC). Section 2.2.10(B)(1) Major
Amendments of the LUC states (in part) that... Major amendments to
development plans or site specific development plans approved under this Land
Use Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for
the original development plan for which amendment is sought.
2. Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a. On the Site Plan, show the building envelope, building dimensions, and
distance to the closest property line for the addition.
b. It does not look as though there is any proposal to add more auto display
spaces along Mason Street. Is this correct?
C. On the Site Plan, show typical parking stall dimensions and back-up
distance. Show the handicapped parking stall sizes, as well.
d. On the Site Plan, note the actual maximum building height, not what is
. allowed by Code.
e. Remove the topography lines from the final Site and Landscape Plans.
Please contact Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these
comments.
281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020