HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAVERIK CONVENIENCE STORE & FUEL SALES - PDP - PDP150028 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (5)them to you. Tht ..;commendation for an all -way stop at the pi ,,erty entrance
and frontage road in the long term will require discussion.
Response Number 1:
The access to the north CDOT Frontage Road has been closed to this development.
Department: Water Conservation
Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson()fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/18/2015
12/18/2015: A landscape plan shall contain accurate and identifiable
hydrozones, including a water budget chart that shows the total annual water
use, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) gallons per square foot over the site. If
you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704.
Response Number 1:
Hydrozones included.
17
Response Numb,. SO:
Boundary information has been moved.
Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: Please correct the Southeast Frontage Road label. See redlines.
Response Number 31:
Label has been corrected.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016. Please add "to be vacated by this plat" to the Access Easement
per Reception No. 20130083049 label. See redlines.
Response Number 32:
Note has been added.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: Please remove "& Lot 17, Interchange Business Park" to match
the title of the Subdivision Plat. See redlines.
01/05/2016: Please add "Lot 1, Maverik Subdivision Filing No. 1". If the
improvements are to include Lot 17, Interchange Business Park as shown,
please include in the title. If the Subdivision Plat is changed to include Lot 17,
Interchange Business Park, please match the lot configuration shown on the
Plat. See redlines.
Response Number 5:
Title has been revised.
Comment Number: 7
02/25/2016: There are line -over -text issues. See redlines.
01/05/2016: There are line -over -text issues. See redlines.
Response Number 7:
Text has been corrected.
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson(a�fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
02/24/2016: CDOT has confirmed the comment below. It should be noted that
poor level of service is expected at the access point (across from Denrose
Court). Improvements (such as a roundabout) would not be constructed by
CDOT, and if a better LOS is desired, would be the responsibility of the
applicant.
02/24/2016. We'll forward any further comments from CDOT. Note that the
right in only entrance to the old frontage road needs to be emergency access
only, and no 4-way stop at the Maverick entrance will be allowed.
01/06/2016: The TIS is in review with CDOT. We'll forward any comments from
16
Comment Number. 23 Uomment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: Are there any Lienholders for this property? If so, please add a
signature block. If not, please add a note stating there are none, and include
response in written comments.
Response Number 23:
There are no lien holders.
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: Please use a smaller text size for the sheet title & numbering
below the sub -title. See redlines.
Response Number 24:
Test has been changed.
Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: Please note that the Maverik Annexation Plat has to be recorded
prior the this Plat.
Response Number 25:
Noted.
Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: Please remove the Clerk & Recorder signature block.
Response Number 26:
Clerk and Recorder signature block has been removed.
Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: All easements must be labeled & locatable. See redlines.
Response Number 27:
Easements are labeled and locatable.
Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: There are cut off (incomplete) text issues. See redlines.
Response Number 28:
Text has been corrected.
Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016. There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response Number 29:
Text has been corrected.
Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016. Please move all boundary information to the outside of the
boundary.
15
areas. See redline...
Response Number 34:
Text has been corrected.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: No plans were provided for review, so we cannot verify this was
addressed.
01/05/2016: Please add "Lot 1, Maverik Subdivision Filing No. 1". If the
improvements are to include Lot 17, Interchange Business Park as shown,
please include in the title. If the Subdivision Plat is changed to include Lot 17,
Interchange Business Park, please match the lot configuration shown on the
Plat. See redlines.
Response Number 15:
The title has been changed to match the plat.
Topic: Plat
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: This has not been corrected.
01/05/2016: Please make sure all plat language is the most current City
language.
Response Number 2:
All Plat language has been changed to match City standards.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: These have not been provided.
01/05/2016: Please provide current acceptable monument records for the
aliquot corners shown. These should be emailed directly to Jeff at
jcounty@fcgov.com
Response Number 3:
The monument records have been included in the submittal
Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: Please make change to the sub -title as marked. See redlines.
Response Number 21:
Changes have been made.
Comment Number: 22
Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016. Please make changes to the Statement Of Ownership And
Subdivision as marked. See redlines.
Response Number 22:
Changes have been made.
14
BENCHMARI.,+w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PLAN SET IS USING NAVD88 FOR A VERTICAL
DATUM. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE USED NGVD29
UNADJUSTED FOR THEIR VERTICAL DATUMS.
IF NGVD29 UNADJUSTED DATUM IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE,
THE FOLLOWING EQUATION SHOULD BE USED: NGVD29 UNADJUSTED
= NAVD88 - X.XX�.
Response Number 18:
The equation has been corrected.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: FLOOR PLAN: There are line -over -text issues. See redlines.
Response Number 35:
These have been corrected.
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: Please remove 1 Lot 17, Interchange Business Park" to match
the title of the Subdivision Plat. See redlines.
01/05/2016. Please add "Lot 1, Maverik Subdivision Filing No. 1". If the
improvements are to include Lot 17, Interchange Business Park as shown,
please include in the title. If the Subdivision Plat is changed to include Lot 17,
Interchange Business Park, please match the lot configuration shown on the
Plat. See redlines.
Response Number 9:
The title has been revised and matches the Plat.
Comment Number: 10
02/25/2016: There are line -over -text issues. See redlines.
01/05/2016: There are line -over -text issues. See redlines.
Response Number 10:
Text issues have been resolved.
Comment Number: 33
02/25/2016: There are cut off text issues. See redlines.
Response Number 33:
Text issues have been revised.
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched
13
01/05/2016: It is acknowledged that the proposed work is to take place outside
of the floodplain; however, it appears that the floodplain does encroach on the
site. Please either:
- Show that the floodplain does not encroach on the site via an exhibit; or,
- Show the extents of the floodplain on the plat, site plan and drainage &
grading plan to verify that no landscaping or other work is to take place within
the floodplain.
CAD floodplain data is available upon request from Beck Anderson at
banderson(@fcgov.com.
Response Number 8:
The site plan delineation has been modified on both the Plat and Site Plan.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty(�fcgov.com
Topic: Building Elevations
Comment Number: 36
02/25/2016: There are line -over -text issues. See redlines.
Response Number 36:
These have been corrected.
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: Please remove "& Lot 17, Interchange Business Park" to match
the title of the Subdivision Plat. See redlines.
01/05/2016: Please add "Lot 1, Maverik Subdivision Filing No. 1". If the
improvements are to include Lot 17, Interchange Business Park as shown,
please include in the title. If the Subdivision Plat is changed to include Lot 17,
Interchange Business Park, please match the lot configuration shown on the
Plat. See redlines.
Response Number 17:
The title has been revised to match the Plat.
Comment Number: 18
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: Please correct the value in the equation. See redlines.
01/05/2016: The City has moved to the NAVD88 vertical datum, and as of
January 1, 2015 all projects are required to be on NAVD88 datum. Please
provide the following information for the Benchmark Statement in the EXACT
format shown below.
PROJECT DATUM: NAVD88
BENCHMARK # w/ DESCRIPTION
ELEVATION:
12
requirement or fo, ssistance with the spreadsheet.
Response Number 5:
The pond will be expanded and a new outlet control device will be installed that detains flow and
provides for a 2-year historic flow release rate. This outlet structure will be defined in the final
drainage report and within the construction drawings.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: Comment still applies.
01/05/2016. Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon
future submittals as additional details are discovered.
Response Number 7:
Noted.
Comment Number: 9
02/25/2016: Please see redlines.
Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
Response Number 9:
Redlined sheet have been reviewed and comments addressed
Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970.218-2932, ischlam(a�fcgov.com
Topic: Erosion Control
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015
02/19/2016: Comments stated that Erosion Control Materials were submitted,
Upon reviewing the packet the erosion control report, plan and escrow
calculation were not located. Comment from 12/10/2015 still applies. If you
need clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any
questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @
jschlam@fcgov.com
12/10/2015: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft, therefore Erosion and
Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control
requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of
Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials
Submitted do not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan,
Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need
clarification concerning the erosion control section, or if there are any questions
please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @ ischlam(a fcgov.com
Response Number 9:
The Erosion Control is included with this submittal.
Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylora()fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/22/2016: Please refer to the red -lined comments on the plat, the site plan,
and the drainage report referring to the FEMA floodplain and it's boundaries.
11
pavements be pe, .,,)us and 50% of impervious area being treaLt ,u by LID
techniques.
Response Number 2:
The Erosion Control Report outlines various phases of the development and overall erosion control
techniques for the phases. Until the actual construction documents are completed and a phasing
plan has been created by the contractor, the exact phasing of the project cannot yet be determined.
Basically, the first phase will consist of the demolition and disposal of existing improvements
within the site. All existing drainage facilities will be protected with BMP. All drainage from the site
will continue to discharge into the exiting detention pond along the northerly property line.
The second phase will consist of all onsite construction including grading, utility and underground
tank installation, building construction, pouring of curb , gutter, sidewalk and asphalt placement.
Landscaping and retrofitting of the pond will be the last improvements within this phase.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: Comment still applies. Clarification on Comment #2 will be helpful
in understanding the LID table that was submitted.
01/05/2016: Please discuss LID requirements and how they are being met in
the drainage report as well as providing additional details on the utility plan. A
table showing how the requirements are met would be helpful and a sample
table is available for download at hftp://tinyurl.com/SampleLIDTable. Detail
drawing D-54 for pervious pavers can be found in both .pdf and .dwg formats
through the links to Construction Drawings under Stormwater on
www.fcgov.com/utility-development. It is recommended to update this detail
based on the specific cross -sectional depths for the site. Please note that all
City construction detail drawings are to be used in their original, unaltered state.
ANY modification(s) must be clearly distinguished and all City logos/identifiers
must be removed from the modified detail.
Response Number 3:
The LID Table has been presented in the plans.
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: I've noted that the pond will be modified to increase volume. There
is not currently an outlet control structure, and the outfall swale and pipes have
not been properly maintained. An outlet structure will need to be constructed to
provide water quality and limit the release rate to 2-year historic conditions. The
outfall will need to be brought up to standard to allow the pond's release to
reach Boxelder Creek.
01/05/2016: Please show that the existing detention pond is sufficient to handle
the proposed development and release at the 2-year historic rate. If the existing
pond is not sufficient, it will need to be modified.
If modified, please provide evidence that the detention basin is in compliance
with drain times per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(8). More information
on this statute is available at http://tinyurl.com/RevisedStatuteMemo, and a
spreadsheet to show compliance is available for download at
http://tinyurl.com/ComplianceSpreadsheet. Please contact Dan Mogen at
(970)224-6192 or dmogen@fcgov.com with any questions about this
10
02/19/2016: No ,,,dnges on behalf of Light & Power since row to 1.
Response Number 8:
Comment noted.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416.2869, jlynxwiler(a)poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: EMERGENCY ACCESS
The Emergency Access Easement shall connect with the public way. The
proposed EAE connects with the frontage road on the south, however it is
unclear if the proposed EAE connection on the north is continuous with another
easement or public way and further information is requested. Fire lanes in
excess of 150' in length require a through connection or an approved
turnaround.
The applicant should also be aware that redevelopment of the site should allow
full access to the entire hotel/convenience store complex and should in no way
have a negative impact on the ability of fire apparatus to access all portions of
the hotel. Turning maneuvers should be taken into account. A minimum inside
turning radius of 25' and an outside turning radius of 50' is required.
Response Number 1:
The driveway off of the CDOT frontage road has been closed o access and the emergency Access
Easement is accounted for on the Plat. The emergency access easement is an onsite turn -a -round.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 12/14/2015
12/14/2015: PUBLIC -SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST
Notice of PFA policy update: BDA testing is no longer required for any building
under 10,000 sq. ft. or any Type V construction building under 15,000 sq. ft.
Response Number 2:
Comment noted.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Dan Mogen, 970.224.6192, dmogen(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/25/2016: Please expand on the information provided to clarify areas of
change. An exhibit or explanation showing areas of existing conditions,
demolition and new construction would be helpful in understanding the changes
due to the proposed development.
01/05/2016: Please document the existing and proposed impervious areas. 11
is important to have a good understanding of these changes to properly apply
drainage requirements and fees. This includes showing existing paved areas
and changes to pavement, which will allow determination of the Low Impact
Development (LID) requirements which require that 25% of vehicle use
E
charges and any z,,zitem modification charges necessary will appy to this
development.
Response Number 2:
Noted.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 12/29/2015
12/29/2015: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coordinate the
transformer and electric meter locations, please show the locations on the utility
plans.
Response Number 3:
Noted. The transformer and meter locations are shown on the plans.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015
12/29/2015: Transformer locations shall be within 10' of a paved surface and
must have a minimum of an 8' clearance from the front side and a 3' clearance
around the sides and rear. (1000 kVA up to 2500 kVA requires 4' around the
sides and rear.)
Response Number 4:
Noted.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 12/29/2015
12/29/2015: Please provide a one line diagram and a C-1 form to Light and
Power Engineering. The C-1 form can be found at:
http://zeus.fcqov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1 Form.pdf
Response Number 5:
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 12/29/2015
12/29/2015: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, development charge
processes, and use our fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
Response Number 6:
Noted.
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/08/2016
01/08/2016. With regard to streetlights, a 40 feet separation on both sides of
the light is required between canopy trees and streetlights. A 15 feet
separation on both sides of the light is required between ornamental trees and
streetlights.
Response Number 7:
This separation has been maintained
Comment Number: 8
Comment Originated: 02/19/2016
t3
meeting. ApplicarIL0 of new commercial or multi -family projects die advised to
call 416-2341 to schedule
a pre -submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans,
floor plans, and elevations
and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of
construction being proposed.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended:
2012 International Building Code (IBC)
2012 International Residential Code (IRC)
2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
2012 International Mechanical Code (IMC)
2012 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
2012 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Fort Collins has amendments to most of the codes listed above. See the
fcgov.com web page to view them.
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI Al17.1-2009.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B.
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5
Energy Code Use
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2012 IRC Chapter 11 or 2012 IECC,
2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2012 IECC residential
chapter.
3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2012 IECC commercial
chapter.
Response Number 1:
This comment has been noted and information will be shown on the MEP construction Drawings.
We will schedule a pre -permit meeting as we develop the construction drawings.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Coy Althoff, 970.221-6700, CAlthoff(a)fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 12/29/2015
12/29/2015: Light & Power can serve this property with both single and
3-phase power. Primary electric is located along the N-N.W. side of the
Frontage Rd.
Response Number 1:
We would request 3-phase power.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015
12/29/2015: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site
7
Response Numu... 1:
The fees outlined above have been paid.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverettecDfcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/30/2015
02/19/2016: Please provide a photo or detail of the wrought -iron fencing to be
used.
12/30/2015: Chain link fencing is not an acceptable fencing material. Please
replace with a higher -quality fencing material (e.g., split rail, wood). The eastern
edge of the site should have a varied edge to soften the appearance of the
fenceline and mirror the landscape character across the street on the
McDonald's property. See Land Use Code section 3.8.11 for reference.
Response Number 3:
See revised Landscape Plans
Department: Forestry
Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tuchanan a()fcgov.com
Topic: Landscape Plans
Comment Number. 5 Comment Originated: 02/25/2016
02/25/2016:
Street Trees should be canopy shade trees or in the case if an ornamental tree
cultivar is used it should have an upright form. Change the spring snow
crabapples and radiant crabapples used between the parkway between the
sidewalk and curb to canopy shade trees from the City of Fort Collins Street
Tree list or to the following ornamental trees. Use some canopy shade trees
along the north parkway such as Red Barron Crabapple and Chanticleer Pear.
Response Number 5:
See revised landscape plans
Department: Internal Services
Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland(a)fcgov.com
Topic: Building Insp Plan Review
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 12/28/2015
12/28/2015:
Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting:
Pre -Submittal meetings are required to assist the designer/builder by assuring,
early on in the design,
that the new commercial or multi -family projects are on track to complying with
all of the adopted City
codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early
to mid -design stage for
this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning
conceptual review
R
the Pet Area and Ll.f driveway is not landscaped sufficiently givo, ' the amount of
hard surface associated with this development proposal. With only three
Bacheri Spruce, and with only Buffalo Junipers, this level of landscaping does
not mitigate the extent of the asphalt surfaces and building coverage. This area
needs to be planted in a more dense fashion to soften the overall auto -related
aspect of the development.
Response Number 34:
See revised landscape plans
Comment Number: 35
Comment Originated: 02/27/2016
02/27/2016: If you would like to have the electrical transformer painted by a
local artist, please contact Ellen Martin, Art in Public Spaces Administrator,
970-416-2789 or emartin .fcgov.com
Response Number 35:
Noted.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Katie Sexton, 970-221-6501, ksexton@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/23/2016: An off -site drainage easement will need to be dedicated by separate
document for the portion of the detention pond that lies on the hotel site.
01/05/2016: A drainage easement will need to be dedicated on the plat to
accommodate the detention pond.
Response Number 3:
A separate document describing the required offsite drainage easement has been prepared and will
be dedicated as a separate document when the plat is recorded.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 01/05/2016
02/23/2016: The fence still looks like it is within 1 foot of the sidewalk in some
places. 01/05/2016: All fences should be setback at least 2 feet from the
sidewalk per LCUASS Figure 16-1.
Response Number 5:
The fence is located 2-feet inside of the sidewalk. The 2-foot dimension has been annotated on the
plan.
Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573,
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
slangenberger(cDfcgov.com
Comment Originated: 12/21/2015
12/21 /2015: The TDR Fees for the PDP were not calculated correctly. An
additional $1,185.89 is due for the project.
5
Comment Number: 30
Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016:ln order to ensure compliance with Section 3.5.3(E)(9), and as
mentioned in Conceptual Review comment number 23, please add the following
note to the Site Plan:
"Exterior -mounted exposed neon/fiber/optic rope L.E.D. lighting, illuminated
translucent materials (except signs), illuminated striping or banding, and
illuminated product displays on appurtenant structures (e.g, fuel dispensers are
prohibited."
02/24/2016: Carried Over. As mentioned, the lighting under the valence at the
top of the wall of the store building is prohibited by this standard.
Also, staff remains concerned about the product displays and advertising
banners that are indicated to be placed on the canopy columns. Staff
recommends that in order to comply with the standard, these displays and
banners be placed inside the store.
Response Number 30:
Recessed wall wash light will not be exposed, please see proposed cornice detail 3/A2.2. Canopy
columns are proposed to be wrapped in stone veneer, no display will be present. The requested
note has been placed on the Site Plan.
Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016: On the Lighting Plan, there are fixtures, T-6 and T-11 that are listed
in the schedule but not shown on the plan. If not on the plan, please remove.
02/24/2016: Carried Over. The response indicates that a letter is attached that
addresses the comments but this letter has not been received.
Response Number 32:
T-11 is a recessed luminaire in the building in the building entrance canopy. See Sheet E-1.2. T-6 is
a gooseneck luminaire over the store front canopy and side door. See Sheet E-1.2.
Comment Number: 33
Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016: The Lighting Plan schedule should include a column for quantity,
and that the Light Loss Factor is 1.0, and that LED Kelvin temperatures should
be reduced from 4,000 to 3,000 so as to be more compatible with surrounding
public roadway lighting.
02/24/2016: Response letter has not been received.
Response Number 33:
Changes have been made. See Sheet E1.2.
Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 02/24/2016
02/24/2016: Staff is concerned that the area along the Frontage Road between
4
a detail on the cop.. ig that is specified for the top of the wall. AZ' stated at
Conceptual Review, commercial buildings are required to have a distinctive top
such as a sloping roof with overhangs and brackets, stepped parapets,
mansard, faux mansard, or cornice treatments. As proposed, it appears that
compliance relies on the 24-guage pre -finished metal coping. Without a detail,
it is difficult to assess the depth of this building component and how this feature
rises to the level of being a cornice treatment.
02/24/2016: Carried Over: The detail for the cornice appears to be more of a
valence, with a recessed light fixture, versus a true cornice. The six-inch trim that
hides the light fixture is not a cornice element. Both the trim piece and the light
fixture must be removed. The top of the building must feature a true cornice.
Also, please note that lighting around the perimeter of the top of the building is
prohibited per Section 3.5.3(E)(9).
Response Number 24:
Please see revised cornice detail on sheet A2.2, design intended to have hidden wall
washing light fixture within cornice detail)
Comment Number: 26
Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016: One primary architectural feature that remains unaddressed is
Conceptual Review comment number 20 regarding the overall design impact of
the flat canopy roof. Staff re-emphasizes that the canopy roof feature some
form of relief due to its excessive size.
02/24/2016: Carry Over: Staff remains concerned that pitched feature that has
been added appears to occur only for a portion of one elevation. As such, it
does not adequately address the fundamental aspect of the issue. The
balance of the canopy roof remains flat, with the exception of the minor feature
on the right side of the street facing elevation. As proposed, the canopy is large
and highly visible from the public roadways. More needs to be done to the
canopy roof in order to mitigate its overall flatness and create some interest and
variety to this large building component.
Response Number 26:
Canopy roof has been revised to mansard style, (please see sheet A2.4)
Comment Number: 27
Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016: A flat -roofed canopy at this scale will not be recommended for
approval. Please consider a pitched roof, hip or shed. Or, please consider a
faux sloping mansard that is modified to create the appearance that the
mansard roof covers the entire structure. Other options or combinations may be
considered. The requirement for a pitched roof is also found in the 1-25 Sub
Area Plan standards per Section 3.9.5(B).
02/24/2016: Carried over for emphasis, see above comment.
Response Number 27:
Canopy roof has been revised to mansard style, please see sheet A2.4)
[c3
2.8.2(H)(1-4) pro�.,es the four criteria by which a Modification u, otandard can
be supported. Of these four, only one would be applicable to the issue of
building orientation. This criterion states:
"The plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for
which the modification is required equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standard for which a modification is requested."
02/24/2016: Carried over. Staff recommends that the project narrative be
revised to directly address how the alternative site plan addresses the building's
relationship to the street and what features have been added that encourage pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity.
Response Number 4:
As Stated in the previous response, the orientation lends to an openness which invites both
pedestrian and bicyclists. The overall site layout opens up the transportation corridor providing
better site lines for motorists, pedestrian and cyclists. The orientation of the buildings within the
site provides the opportunity for a public rest stop and small pocket park with a pedestrian corridor
that connects to all surrounding aspects of the proposed site and existing developments. The
architectural elements have also been upgraded to enhance the visual characteristics of the
development.
Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016: Neither the Site nor Landscape Plan indicates the existing
overhead power line along the north roadway. These are only shown on the
ALTA Survey. Please indicate the status of these lines as a result of the
proposed land development. Are they to be placed underground or removed?
Do they belong to Public Service or R.E.A.? This status of these power lines
may influence the types of trees to be planted along the north roadway.
Response Number 15:
The existing overhead power line along the north roadway has been included in both the
landscape and site plans.
Comment Number: 23
Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016. Regarding the architectural elevations, Planning Services
Conceptual Review comments numbers 14 � 21 remain unaddressed.
02/24/2016: Carried Over: Please note that while the perspective drawing is
very helpful, we will need to see the actual dimensions of the projecting feature
on the right side elevation. In addition, the projecting pilasters also need to be
dimensioned. We need to be able to evaluate the depth of these projections to
ensure that they are effective and not merely applied to the wall plane.
Response Number 23:
Proposed pilaster projection is 6" (please see dimension on sheet A1.2)
Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016: For example, on architectural elevation sheet A2.1, please provide
E
March 15, 2016
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
City of Fort Collins
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Maverik Convenience Store and Fuel Sales, PDP150028, Round Number 2
Dear Ted,
Please see the following responses to the comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for on February 27, 2016 for the resubmittal of the above referenced project.
Review Number 2 Response Summary:
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard ci�fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016: As you know, we have discussed the fundamental orientation of
the building and canopy in relationship to the public streets and how Section
3.5.3 of the City's Land Use Code requires an orientation that differs from the
proposal. The proposed layout will require a Modification of Standard to
Section 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Street front Buildings.
02/24/2016: Carried over for emphasis.
Response Number 3:
This comment is understood and we believe the Modifications to Standards has been addressed
previously, however, the architectural elements, particularly in reference to the canopy, have been
upgraded within this submittal. To reiterate our position, the proposed placement of the building
and canopy exceeds the current City's Land Use code because it provides for an openness along
the Mulberry Boulevard and CDOT 1-25 Frontage Road, by providing a public open space area with
amenities and pedestrian connectivity throughout the project site. The architectural elements
proposed will brighten up the existing developed area, catching motorist interest.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016
01/06/2016: In discussing the proposed orientation, the Statement of Planning
Objectives refers to the "visibility and openness" concept and the "open feel
and easy utilization of the facilities for the traveling general public and local
consumers." While these observations may have merit, they do not directly
address the fundamental aspect of the standard and any of the criteria by which
City Staff can evaluate a Request for Modification of Standard. Section