HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNIVERSITY CENTER PUD (UNIVERSITY MALL REDEVELOPMENT) - FINAL - 2-96A - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)DATE: December 11, 1997 DEPT:Water & Wastewater
PROJECT: University Center P.U.D. (LDGS) Final
All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, December 10, 1997
A meeting is needed to discuss this development. Please contact Roger Buffington at 221-6681
to set up meeting.
-The entire length of water main in the rear of the current building is in need of replacement.
Relay entire length of pipe using C900 PVC pipe. (Ciro -Mp•K DN Cc6
-Provide utility easements for all fire hydrants and curbstops. Provide 30' easements for sanitary
sewer mains.
-Include the standard general notes on the landscape plans.
-Provide the required landscape/utility separations on the landscape plans.
-Double services and fire lines are not permitted.
-Provide profiles of all storm drains and include water and sewer main crossings in the profiles.
-Provide a minimum of 10' separation between all thrust blocks and other utilities.
-Determine all fitting sizes, angles etc. now in order to finalize the design.
-All services must be prior to the last fire hydrant on a non looped main
-Provide the following details: Thrust block, Traffic area clean -out and Man hole adjustment(If
needed)
-See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments.
Date: Signature: 17� `%
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS P
X PLAT X SITE _DRAINAGE REPORT _OTHER
X UTILITY X REDLINE UTILITY X LANDSCAPE (606=
City of Fort Collins
8. Please include complete erosion control calculations (performance standard and
effectiveness calculations) according to the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference
Manual.
RESPONSE:
9. Please provide more details of the drainage system directly to the west of the existing
buildings. The plans state that the area inlets will be reinstalled. Please be specific on how
they will be reinstalled and specify the new rim elevations. Sump pump systems are not
accepted as part of a drainage system. Please specify how this drainage will drain to the
pond. Provide pipe profiles for all the proposed storm sewers.
RESPONSE:
10. Many contours are not shown to tie in with existing contours. Please ensure that all
proposed grading will match up with existing grading. Any grading outside the property
boundary will require a grading easement.
RESPONSE:
11. Capacity calculations are needed for all proposed storm sewers.
RESPONSE:
12. Please show profiles for all proposed storm water pipes in the plans. Show all
crossing utilities on the profiles.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redline plans and report for additional review comments.
2. Please show how the controlling release of 1.64 cfs at manhole 1 and the controlling
release of 4.72 cfs at manhole 2 were calculated. If these releases are based on
downstream restrictions, then the ponds must be designed to release at these rates.
RESPONSE:
3. Please calculate the capacities of the spillways for ponds 1,2, and 3. Show that there is
adequate capacity to pass 100-year developed flows in the event that the pond outlets
were fully plugged.
RESPONSE:
4. The note on the plans state that the drainage from the Burlington Northern Railroad
would be re-routed away from the site and towards the existing swale on the west side of
the site. An off -site drainage easement from BNR and any downstream properties to
change existing drainage patterns is needed. If drainage easements are provided, then the
site should be graded so that existing drainage drains to the site like it does currently.
Please delineate the off -site drainage basins draining through the site.
RESPONSE:
5. Please provide a more detailed discussion of how the allowable release rates for the
detention ponds were obtained in section 4 of the report. The 2-year historic releases of
2.48 cfs and 5.64 cfs do not appear in the historic drainage calculations. In the hydrologic
calculations section of the report, clearly show the 2-year historic releases at the proposed
outfalls of the detention ponds.
RESPONSE:
6. It appears that the majority of the basin B historically drained to the west, rather than to
the College Ave. system. Please calculate the existing contribution of flow from basin B
to manhole 2. The release from pond 3 should not exceed this flow.
RESPONSE:
7. Please add City of Fort Collins standard erosion control notes to the plan set. Also,
include an erosion control construction sequence in the plan set.
RESPONSE:
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 11, 1997 TO: Stormwater
PROJECT: #2-96A University Center P.U.D.
(LDGS) Final
All comments must be recieved Steve Olt no later than the staff review
meeting:
Wednesday, December 10,1997
Note: The submitted plans and report do not have the level of detail needed for final
approval. Important information such as developed hydrology calculations, pipe profiles,
and erosion control calculations were not included. The following comments are based on
the information provided. Please address these comments. Additional comments may
arise once additional information is provided.
1. Please provide calculations for developed conditions runoff in the drainage report. Add
a drainage summary table to the drainage plan. Place design points at the outlets of the
detention ponds and calculate the 100-year developed flow to the design point. Place
design points at any location where site flow is releasing to offsite and calculate the flow.
Please verify basin delineation with proposed topography.
RESPONSE:
Date: / �— �� 7 Signature:;55 ITS
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH M RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
xPl �Sibe -Mef
Utdq Rer = rT►i 4 � City of Fort Collins
University Shopping Center (page 2 of 2) December 17, 1997
• The public service company needs to sign the plat if an easement is being dedicated to
them.
• Are you wishing for the remaining Row on site to be vacated?
Utility Plans
• The plat also needs to be a part of the utility plan set. It should come after the cover
sheet.
• Need a north arrow and scale on the Drainage, Grading and Erosion Control Plan sheet.
• The new contours do not always tie into the existing contours.
• The interior 4 way intersection needs to be better delineated. This should be shown as a 4
way stop. Provide the patterned concrete on the south side of the intersection also.
Provide a striped cross walk on the east side of the intersection. Line up the curbs on the
south side with the curbs on the north.
• The drive from the south - the curve approaching the 4 way stop needs to be smoothed
out slightly.
• It is not clear what is existing and what is new.
• Easements will be needed for any work out side of the plated boundaries.
• show the maximum building envelope on the plans. What happens to this parking area
and utilities if this becomes building.
• Provide sidewalk ramp details.
• The patterned concrete at the entrances - provide some info on this.
See plans for additional comments
.6
REVISION
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 11, 1997 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #2-96A University Center P.U.D.
(LDGS) Final
All comments must be recieved Steve Olt no later than the staff review
meeting:
Wednesday, December 10,1997
University Shopping Center December 17, 1997
Site Plan
• The parking lot - what is curb and what is paint - what is new and what is existing. It is
not clear.
• The maximum building envelope that is indicated. What happens to the parking adjacent
to this area? It will not work in the configuration as shown. How many spaces does this
lose in the overall count?
• In places where the parking overhangs the sidewalk a minimum 6 foot sidewalk is
needed. See plans for marked locations.
• The interior 4 way intersection needs to be better delineated. This should be shown as a 4
way stop. Provide the patterned concrete on the south side of the intersection also.
Provide a striped cross walk on the east side of the intersection. Line up the curbs on the
south side with the curbs on the north.
• The drive from the south - the curve approaching the 4 way stop needs to be smoothed
out slightly.
• Appear to be missing some handicap ramps.
Plat
• Please use the new attorney certification statement provided.
• A new easement is being shown on tract C. This easement can not be dedicated by this
plat, since it is not within the platted boundaries of the property.
&Cdptinued on next page) z�j� Si tote l
CM HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
' PId )"Siff _ Dimp RqW — Ord �r
UWq MY %` City of Fort Collins
12/15 /97
TO: Project Planner and applicants
FM: Clark Mapes, Advance Planning Department
RE: University Center P.U.D.
The pedestrian facilities, building placement, and landscape elements need fundamental attention
in several areas. Advance Planning staff expect that design solutions will not involve simply
adding details, but rather some fresh consideration of LDGS criteria A-2.6 (Pedestrian
Circulation), A-2.2 (Building Placement), and A-2.13 (Landscaping).
Following are specific areas that need significant design attention.
1. Connections between pads, anchors, and the street.
2. The setting for the transit stop. (This comment is limited to "the setting" in acknowledgement
of previous discussions that apparently concluded that reconfiguring the parking lot to allow a
direct walkway from the stop to the anchors is not reasonably feasible, and that transit patrons
and pedestrians will have to walk through the parking lot. If this is not accurate of if any new
circumstances reopen the idea of changing the parking lot, then the connection to the transit stop
also needs attention.
3. A sidewalk across the street frontage just south of McDonald's.
4. A connection to the west to 1) access the new parking lot; 2) access the future improved multi -
modal corridor along the rail R.O.W.; and 3) open possibiilites for access to/from land uses west
of the site.
5. A focal point to mark the transition at the new building. This could anchor a spine through the
building to/from the west and offer significant relief from the sheer unbroken length of the
building wall and parking lot.
6. Comfortable access along the south side of the new building.
7. Tree canopy in parking lot islands.
8. Service area and parking lot screening.
See the enclosed plan with notes. This looks like it needs a meeting. Staff acknowleges that
existing conditions may make it unreasonable to meet the purposes of certain LDGS criteria. If
so, then we need to have, consistent agreement about it, and we need to look for opportunities for
improvements that mitigate the deficiencies.
Thank you.
2-96A
University Center PUD
December 10, 1997
Buildings which exceed 5000 square feet in area must be equipped with an automatic fire
suppression system or be compartmentalization by fire -resistive construction as required by
Section 3802, Uniform Building Code as amended by the City of Fort Collins.
The site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with Uniform Building Code
Section 3103 and UBC Appendix Section 3106. Provide a designated and marked "accessible
route of travel' among all the buildings on the site and building exits and entrances and the public
way (public sidewalk). Accessible routes shall comply with ANSI A117.1-1992 with running
slopes no greater than 1:20 and cross slopes no steeper than 1:50. Where routes cross lanes for
vehicle traffic, they shall be designated and marked as a cross walk. Provide parking and signs
per Appendix Section 3107. Parking and access aisles shall comply with ANSI A117.1-1992 with
slopes no greater than 1:50 in any direction.
Buildings shall be designed to comply with the Fort Collins Nonresidential Energy Code
(ASBRAE 90.1 with local amendments).
REVISION
C OMMENT SHEET
DATE: November 11, 1997 TO: Bldg Inspec
PROJECT: #2-96A University Center P.U.D.
(LDGS) Final
All comments must be received Steve Olt no later than the staff review
meeting: Wednesday, December 10, 1997
Section 104 Uniform Building Code allows additions and alterations to existing buildings only if
such additions or alterations conform to the code requirements for a new building. Additions and
alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure which will cause the existing
building or structure to be in violation of any provisions of the code. Any building plus new
additions shall not exceed the area specified for a new building. Construction documents
submitted with application for building permits must clearly show compliance with applicable
building code provisions. The structures located adjacent to the north property line between
"Tenant E" and "Montgomery Wards" must be protected in accordance with Section 504(b).
Railroad right-of-way may not be used as public ways or yards for purposes of increasing
allowable area under the code provisions.
The code section references above are taken from the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code.
The 1997 edition of the UBC is currently being reviewed for adoption by the City. Similar
provisions are contained in the 1997 version.
More...
Date:
(a uffi aek 5 , 1994
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
-Plat _ Site _ Damage Report _ Omer
_Utility _ Redline Utility _ Iandsrape
City of Fort Collins
No Text
x
rl
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 new development review process and schedule there is no revision date
mandated by the City. The amount of time spent on revisions is up to the
applicant. 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.
4Sincly,
Olt
Project Planner
cc: Engineering
Stormwater Utility
Zoning
Advance Planning
Concepts West Architecture, Inca
Bucher, Willis & Ratliff
Project File
11. The Mapping Department stated that the 10' gas and 20' water easements near
the south side of the plat are "un-locateable" by bearing & distance.
The following comments and concerns were expressed at the Staff Review meeting on
December 10, 1997:
12. This project should prepare for the eventuality of a multi -modal transportation
corridor along the railroad right-of-way immediately to the west. Considerations
for bicycle/pedestrian connections and visual appearance of the "back side" of
this development are important.
13. The Stormwater Utility offered the following comments:
a. What is the status of the detention area on the west side of the property?
b. The release rate for the detention pond needs to be at the 2-year historic
rate. The pond needs to be resized.
C. There is concern about the drainage from the railroad being blocked by
this development.
d. The grading is not very clear on the drainage plans.
14. There appears to be a lot of parking proposed on the west side of the building.
Why is this much needed, is it excessive?
15. Fred Jones of Traffic Operations stated that the proposed new intersection on
the south side of the development (out to South College Avenue and to
development to the south) looks better than the existing and previously proposed
intersections.
16. Based on the Site Plan, it is difficult to determine where entries into the building
are to occur on the west side. Building elevations for the west side would be
helpful and appropriate for the City to review.
17. A good, direct pedestrian connection from the bus stop shelter to the building
should really be made.
18. The building height cannot exceed 40', by Code, without special review.
19. All trash enclosures, service and loading areas, mechanical equipment, etc. must
be screened from view from adjacent properties.
20. Trash receptacles must be in enclosures and the enclosures should be large
enough to include recycle containers.
5.. Rob Wilkinson of the Natural Resources Department stated that the trash
storage and enclosure areas need to be shown on the Site and Landscape
Plans. It is being recommended that they be designed to allow sufficient space to
accommodate recycling containers. It is also recommended that they be located
in an area (such as against the building) which integrates functionally and
aesthetically with the overall Site Plan. Please provide a design detail showing
this information.
6. Kathleen Reavis of Transportation Planning, offered the following comments:
a. Add a sidewalk on the north side of the main entrance drive into the
center.
b. Provide bicycle parking at the building entrances.
C. Provide for a (future) connection back to the Burlington Northern Railroad
right-of-way to plan for a future multi -modal transportation corridor
(bicycles, pedestrian, transit) that will occur. The connection could be
made along the south side of the building addition and should provide a
more direct and continuous path than is presently shown on the Site Plan.
The sidewalk adjacent to the building will have to be widened to 8' and the
pedestrian crossings should be enhanced with markings. and different
paving treatment. Another area to consider would be a connection from
the new retail addition to the building.
Additional information is provided on a marked -up Site Plan that is enclosed.
Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these
comments.
7. A copy of the comments received from Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning'
Department is attached to this letter. Additional information is on a red -lined Site
Plan that is enclosed.
8. A copy of the comments received from Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering
Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments are on red -lined utility
plans that are enclosed.
9. A copy of the comments received from Matt Fater of the Stormwater Utility is
attached to this letter. Additional comments are on red -lined utility plans that are
enclosed.
10. A copy of the comments received from Roger Buffington of the
Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments
are on red -lined utility plans that are enclosed.
h. If the "new pad" site is part of this development plan, then you need to
show building envelope dimensions and setbacks.
j. The plans show depth of parking stalls but the widths are not shown
anywhere.
k. Only one monument sign is allowed for this center. Two signs are shown
on the Site Plan.
I. Building elevation signage should be taken off of the elevation drawings.
This site is outside of the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and the
Planning and Zoning Board has no authority regarding signage. It is
administered by the Zoning Department, based on the sign code.
m. The Land Use Data on Sheet DP-1 indicates that the maximum building
height will be 46-0". The building cannot exceed 40' in height, by Code,
without a special review and no information has been provided to date for
review of that height.
Please contact Peter, Gary, or Jenny at 221-6760 if you have questions about
these comments.
2. A copy of the comments received from Sharon Getz of the Building Inspection
Department is attached to this letter.
3. Bruce Vogel of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments:
a. You will need to coordinate a location for a transformer and 3-phase
conduit feed to new Tenant A and retail area to the south of King
Soopers.
b. A new transformer location will need to be coordinated for Tenants B & E.
C. Any relocation of Light & Power facilities will be at the owner's expense.
i
d. It would be handy if the Master Utility Plan showed existing electrical lines
and facilities.
Please contact Bruce, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these
comments.
4. Gayl-ene Rossiter of Transfort stated that the transit stop is indicated to remain
as planned.
Commt _ty Planning and Environmenta'
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
December 16, 1997
Christopher King
DPC Development Company
700 East Belleview Ave., Suite 290
Englewood, CO. 80111
Dear Chris,
!rvices
Staff has reviewed your documentation for the University Center PUD, Final that was
submitted to the City on November 6, 1997, and would like to offer the following
comments:
Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a. Show ramps for handicapped parking spaces. Handicapped parking
spaces must be a minimum of 12' in width and not all of the proposed
spaces meet this requirement.
b. A complete Site Plan should be resubmitted showing handicapped
. parking, ramps, bicycle racks, trash enclosures (with elevations).
C. Mark pedestrian crosswalk areas and indicate the surface treatment.
d. Who is responsible for Bennigan's Restaurant landscaping? The City
does not believe that they currently have as many trees in front of the
building as are shown on the Landscape Plan. Does Bennigan's want
these trees and who is going to pay for them?
e. Screening of the delivery ramps at the rear of the building, with trees and
other landscaping, is required by Code.
f. Section A -A on the Landscape Plan looks great (for screening of the
parking lot from South College Avenue) but the proposed berm does not
appear to fit on the Site and Landscape Plans.
g. X,20' wide back-up space is required at the 2-sided loading, 45 degree
parking stalls. The plans show 15' to 16' of width.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020