Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY AND LEMAY CROSSINGS, 2ND FILING, PORTION OF LOT SIX, HOME DEPOT - PDP - 36-96J - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSMULBERRY AND LEMAY CROSSINGS PUD FILING NO. 2, MAJOR AMENDMENT ?y+E HOME DEPOT THE HOME D&OT PORTION OF LOT 2. MULBERRY AND LEMAY CROSSINGS FILING NO. 2, �C •i i.'.1�„ L PART OF SOUTHWEST V4 OF SECTION T. T. 2 N., R. 68 W. OF THE OTH P.M.. - CITY OF FORT COLLINS. LARWIER COUNTY. STATE OF COLORADO ° C �- SITE LEGEND — — -- -- etrs„- sew„-- -- — -- — -- PARKING SUMMARY FRONT FIELD 425 SPATS NOKTH FIELD 45 SPACES SOUTH FIELD 143 SPICES REAR FIELD 46 SPICES PARKING TOTALS 659 SPACES 661/9Z - 331 SPACES (ALLOWED) IN rxvu OLLV) A�4Y FF-ouw-klft-wmwift aim a cxm 1 eao-9zz -9Rz 3 OF 9 Response: Gas Main called as 4" Gas Main on Utility Plan Comment: No trees planted within 4' of Gas Lines. Response: Please refer to Landscaping Plan for the addition of this note in the General Notes. Comment: Will need 3 — 5' blank wall to install gas meter (no windows/doors/vents/ etc.). Response: Item noted and will be forwarded to architect designing the building (although I know that we currently meet this requirement) Comment: Install Gas Service prior to asphalt. Response: Refer to revised Utility plan noting in the schedule that line is to be installed prior to putting in asphalt. BUILDING INSPECTION: All information noted and will be passed onto architect for project. Thank you, Gall ay, Ro ro Associates st J N. Andresen r., PE F:\HomeDepot\HD149-HD249-HD449 - HD Store #NW0066 - Store Development - Ft. Collins, CO - NEC Mulberry and Lemay\Docs\Letters\HD249-jna-Planning Comment -Response letter.doc Response: Please see revised grading for revised TOG elevations above the BFE. Because of the low elevation of the access to the east of the building, the building cannot be raised to raise to get the dock out of the floodplain. Per my meeting with Marsha the City is OK with the dock at the current elevation if the pad for the trash compactor is elevated to the level of the BFE. Please refer to the revised grading plans for new elevations. Comment: 4. The BFE for the building appears to be higher than 4933 at the northwest comer of the building. Please review and revise as necessary. Please include a note on the floodplain drawing what the BFE is at the comer of the building as well as the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (BFE +1.5 ft.). The building finished flow must be above the regulatory flood protection elevation. Response: Please refer to the added Floodplain sheet for above information. Comment: 5. Please include a note on the floodplain drawing that all HVAC will be above Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Response: Please refer to added Floodplain sheet for note. Comment: 6. Please include a note on the floodplain drawing that a FEMA elevation certificate must be completed and approved prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. Response: Please refer to added Floodplain sheet for note. Topic: Grading Plans Comment: Number 36 — Please provide a construction quality grading plan as the submitted plan was for reference only. Include low spot elevations, break point elevations, grate elevations, tie in to existing grades, and building Finished Floor Elevations. Response: Please refer to revised Grading Plan in the Utility Plans set. Topic: Utility Plans Comment: Please call out the size and type of all existing and proposed storm sewer facilities on the utility plans. Response: Please refer to revised Utility Plan in the Utility Plans set. ELCO WATER REVIEW Comment: Redlined Plans Response: Water Meters and hydrant placed as requested XCEL ENERGY: Comment: PSCO has a 4" Ped Gas Main located in utility easement along 121h Street. F:\HomeDepot\HD149-HD249-HD449 - HD Store #NW0066 - Store Development - Ft. Collins, CO - NEC Mulberry and Lemay\Dots\Letters\HD249-jna-Planning Comment -Response letter.doc STORMWATER: Topic: Drainage Letter Comment: Number 34 — The letter provided as a drainage report is insufficient. Please provide calculations showing what the assumed basins' flow from the newly developed areas were from the previous studies and what the actual flows are. Document that the assumed flows from these basins will fit within the pond volumes as designed with the Mulberry Lemay First Filing plans and later modifed with Building I re -grading of the pond and the addition of the retaining walls. Response: Please refer to expanded drainage report. Topic: Drainage Plan Comment: Number 37 — Please provide a drainage plan that calls out all basins, and includes a hydrology summary table per City requirements. Response: Please refer to Drainage Plan provided in the Utility Plan set and in the back of the Drainage Report. Comment: Number 38 — Plans are confusing, need to show what is existing and what is proposed in different line thicknesses, it is not clear from what'was submitted what is being built by this project. Response: Please refer to revised plans in Utility Plan set for corrected linetypes. Topic: Erosion Control Comment: Number 33 — Plan needs notes, BMP's, calculations, etc. Response: Please refer to Erosion Control Cover Sheet, Notes and Details sheet and the Erosion Control Plan. Topic: Flooplain Comments Comment: 1. On the Plat, please show the revised Foodplain lines per the LOMR-Fill. Response: No plat for this submittal. Comment: 2. Please create a separate drawing that shows the following: • Floodplain lines per the LOMR-Fill • BFE Lines • Existing and proposed grading • Building locations Response: Please see separate drawing with above listed items. Comment: 3. Because a LOMR-Fill was done for this site, the proposed grading including the TOG cannot be below the FEMA flood elevations. Based on the proposed grading plan, it appears that there are areas in the center of the parking lot that are below the BFE. There are also elevations in the loading dock that are below the BFE. Please review and revise as necessary to have all grades above the BFE. F:\HomeDepot\HD149-HD249-HD449 - HD Store #NW0066 - store Development - Ft. Collins, CO - NEC Mulberry and Lemay\Dots\Letters\HD249-jna-Planning Comment -Response letter.doc Comment: Number 12 — Neither the screen wall or the columns for the screen wall can extend into the site distance easement. From the drawing it appears that the columns are encroaching into the easement. Response: The wall has been moved back so the columns are out of the site distance easement. Comment: Number 13 — Need to clarify what is going to be built and what is proposed for approval in the area around the future building site. Response: Please see revised Site Plan for Phase Line around future building Comment: Number 14 — Need to see a plan where the building envelope and the easements are shown. Need to know if the building is encroaching into any easements and will help to define the limits of the vacations that are needed. Response: Please see revised Site Plan in the Utilities set for the building envelope. We have also create an Easement Plan showing easements and buildings only to make it a little easier to see what is being vacated and what is being added. Comment: Number 15 — The private storm line can not run within the public easement. Response: Storm sewer is out of public easements. Please see revised plans for location of storm sewer line to easements. Comment: Number 16 — See Plans for additional comments. Response: Please refer to revised Utility Plans set -for revisions based on red lines. Comment: Number 30 — Combine the utility plans for both projects into one set. Response: Set has been combined as single, stand-alone Utility Plans set. Comment: Number 31 — For areas of easement vacation, I•need a drawing/sketch with dimensions showing the areas requested for vacation so the requests can be routed to the utilities for review. I emailed Jon at Galloway Romero the information/forms regarding the easement vacations and dedications. Response: We are graphically showing the easement vacations and dedications on the Easement Plan. We are having our drafter (Dennis Streigel with Engineering Service Company) start on the exhibits for these by 01-08-04. We should have to City Engineering in a week or so thereafter. Comment: Number 32 - Add a note on the utility plans with the approximate limits of street repair for the driveway removal and new installation going out to the centerline of the roadway. The note should read as follows: Approximate limits of street cut/mill and overlay if pavement disturbed. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repair to be in accordance with City street repair standards. Response: Refer to Utility plans for limits of street repair and note. F:\HomeDepot\HD149-HD249-HD449 - HD Store #NW0066 - Store Development - Ft. Collins, CO - NEC Mulberry and Lemay\Dots\Letters\HD249-jna-Planning Comment -Response letter.doc Comment: Number 5 — The parking spaces at the south west corner of the parking lot are too close to the public sidewalk. A larger space that allows those parking spaces to be screened from Lemay is needed. Response: Parking spaces greater than the required 2' from the back of the sidewalk. Comment: Number 6 — Need to show the existing improvements as dashed. Response: Please see revised Utility Plans for existing improvements shown as dashed. Comment: Number 7 — See Plans for additional comments. Response: Please refer to revised Utility Plans set for revisions based on red lines. Comment: Number 10 — Combine the utility plans for both projects into one set. Response: Set has been combined as single, stand-alone Utility Plans set. ENGINEERING (PUD — Major Amendment Comments) Comment: Number 17 — The site plan needs to clearly show what is being approved and to be built by this project. Everything is shown in the same line weight. Response: Please see revised Utilities plan set for dashed or hidden lines to distinguish existing from proposed as well as phase line for future building. Comment: Number 8 — See checklist for missing/needed items. Response: Please refer to revised Utility Plans set for added items. Comment: Number 9 — Need to show the existing improvements as dashed. Response: Please see revised Utility Plans set for revisions of existing items as dashed linetype. Comment: Number 10 — The walls and iron picket fence need to be located at least 2 feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk. This may impact the parking stall layout/dimensions in a couple of areas. Response: Please see revise site plan for the horizontal control plan dimensions showing at least 2 feet clearance from back of walk to the outer edge of any column, fence, parking, etc. Drive aisles were reduced from 30' to 28' in rear of store to gain clearance. The seat walls in the north side were moved in slightly to gain necessary clearance. Comment: Number 11 — The wall at the northeast corner of the driveway being relocated needs to be modified so that pedestrians can be seen by cars approaching the street and it is not a blind corner. Response: The wall was moved 9' to the east to provide greater side distance at the access (please see revised plans) F:\HomeDepot\HD149-HD249-HD449 - HD Store #NW0066 - Store Development - Ft. Collins, CO - NEC Mulberry and Lemay\Dots\Letters\HD249-jna-Planning Comment -Response letter.doc Response: Yes, it is a misprint. The corrected hours of restricted activity is 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (please see revised Cover Sheet) Comment: Number 2 — If I understand this correctly, this PDP is only for the parking lot improvements on Lot 6. If that is the case, then the only comment I have is that the drive aisle width in the parking lot needs to be indicated. Response: Please refer to revised site plan that has dimensions for all drive aisles and parking stall widths. TRANSPORTATION: Comment: Number 18 — Will there be an accessible handicapped (HQ route from the HC parking stalls in front of the future building? It would be appropriate to identify an accessible route before the asphalt is poured so that the crosswalks and access ramps can be built in a manner consistent with the entire site (see red lines for suggested route). Response: Plans revised to show route as recommended in red lines. Comment: Number 19 — Will the curb be installed in front of the future building adjacent to the proposed Home Depot? Response: There is a transition zone between the flush paving and the raised curb (please see revised grading for more details). Comment: Number 22 — There will need to be a walkway installed along the south side of the drive aisle, 6' minimum, which aligns between the Home Depot and the future building, per the original plan. This will also accommodate the ADA accessibility route issue in comment #18 (see redlines). Response: Please see revised site plan for the addition of the sidwalk. Comment: Number 23 — Further clarification is needed on how a person can walk from the front of the Home Depot to the future building through the contractor loading area. Response: Paving and painted striping adjusted to show exclusive pedestrian walkway (please refer to revised site plan). ENGINEERING (PDP Comments): Comment: Number 3 — See checklist for missing/needed items. Response: Please refer to revised Utility Plans set for added items. Comment: Number 4 - Will need off site easement for the construction of the sidewalk that splits the property line with Taco Bell/KFC. A letter of intent for this easement is needed prior to hearing. Response: Sidewalk is existing (please refer to revised plans). Per my meeting with Sherri this item is not required as sidewalk is existing. F:\HomeDepot\HD149-HD249-HD449 - HD Store #NW0066 - Store Development - Ft. Collins, CO - NEC Mulberry and Lemay\Dots\Letters\HD249-jna-Planning Comment -Response letter.doc 7. An additional sheet 8 of 9 has been added which contains a straight on view of the south- east elevation and details of the pilasters, square faux windows, arched faux windows, arched eyebrow canopies and a profile of the building cornice. ZONING (PUD — Mai or Amendment Comments): Comment: Number 1 - General Note 415 restricts delivery, trash compaction, etc. between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. Is the 1:00 a.m. a misprint? Is it supposed to be 10:00 a.m. or some other hour? Restricting the hours to only 1:00 a.m. seems rather pointless. That would mean at 1:30 a.m. they can conduct all of these nuisance operations. The restricted hours should be between 10:00 p.m. and perhaps 7:00 a.m. or some other hour that makes sense. Response: Yes, it is. a misprint. The corrected hours of restricted activity is 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (please see revised Cover Sheet) Comment: Number 2 - The parking space dimensions are listed in the "schedule" on the site plan, but the drive aisle width also needs to be listed. Response: The Site Plan "schedule" was paired back per Planning Department comments. The Horizontal Control Plan was used as the basis for the new site plan, so all drive aisle and parking stall widths are labeled with dimensions. Comment: Number 3 — Need to show, label dimension the building footprint and/or envelope and show distances to at least 2 lot lines. This applies to the Home Depot building and the future building. Response: This information is shown on the Utilities Plans set "Site Plan", as it has all the easements on to show the building envelope in relation to the easements. Comment: Number 4 — The proposed outdoor product display area (#92 on the schedule) appears to only be against the building. Is there going to be a outdoor seasonal display/product area in the parking lot as there is at the JFK Home Depot? If so, that area must be labeled on the plan. If it is already labeled, I can't find it amongst all the other numbers. Response: There is a seasonal sales area in the back northeast comer of the store and a plaza/seasonal sale area that is located adjacent to the Garden Center. Please refer to site plan for label. ZONING (PDP Comments): Comment: Number 1 - General Note #15. Is the 1:00 a.m. a misprint? It doesn't make much sense to restrict the activities to only 1:00 a.m. The restricted hours should end at 7:00 a.m. or some other time that makes sense. FAHomeDepot\HD149-HD249-HD449 - HD Store #NW0066 - Store Development - Ft. Collins, CO - NEC Mulberry and Lemay\Dots\Letters\HD249-jna-Planning Comment -Response letter.doc A Galloway, Romero & Associates Design Engineering Planning 5350 DTC Parkway Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (303)770-8884 FAX: (303) 770-3636 January 7, 2004 RE: Home Depot — Mulberry and Lemay, Ft. Collins, Colorado Final PUD, Mulberry and Lemay Crossings Filing No. 2 — Major Amendment and P.D.P. (Part of Lot 6) Comment/Response Letter Below is a the list of comments and responses (revisions) to the PUD — Major Amendment and PDP for the Home Depot at Mulberry and Lemay. PLANNING: Summary of Architectural Updates ( See sheets 6, 7 and 8 of 9) based on meeting 12/17/03. 1. The height of the comer entry towers has been raised such that they are more prominently visible above the main building parapet. 2. The scored concrete which delineates the pedestrian walkway has been extended all along the front of the building to the south side of the lumber canopy. 3. All downcast wallpack light fixtures have been changed to decorative gooseneck fixtures and additional gooseneck fixtures have been added. 4. Additional faux windows with arched "lintel" have been added all around the building. 5. Arched "eyebrow" canopies with rods and turnbuckles have been added above the doors around the sides and back of the building. Turnbuckle elements have been added above the lumber loading doors. No canopies have been added above the loading dock doors due to the conflict with loading and unloading of tractor trailers. This is consistent with the Wal- Mart project to the North. 6. Fascia/facade components have been added periodically around the sides and back of the building in order to interrupt the main building parapet and facade. They also serve to create additional architectural interest and relief in the facade of the building. They include an "arched" component which serves to coordinate with the arched eyebrow canopies and the rotunda entry feature.