No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRADLEY BARR AUTO DEALERSHIP PDP FDP - 64 93E - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (3)26. Stormwater Utility comments are as follows: a. The detention areas are undersized. b. There is still concern about the off -site drainage. The outfall system from this site is not adequate. There are increasing off -site drainage volumes to the west that must pass through this site. 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. Sincerely, dp /(��— - lac/ n E:�OIt Project Planner cc: Engineering/Michael Dean Stormwater Utility/Matt Fater Zoning/Peter Barnes Traffic Operations/Eric Bracke Transportation Planning/Kathleen Reavis Advance Planning/Clark Mapes Spradley Barr Project File 14. What is the distance from the flowline along the west side of South College Avenue to the retaining wall behind the sidewalk? 15. Two cross -sections from South College Avenue to the auto display areas would be very helpful for understanding the relationship of the street to the detention ponds and on to the auto display areas. Please see the red -lined copy of the Site Plan that is enclosed. 16. There is a concern about the sidewalk into the northern auto display area. It really does not go anywhere. By eliminating one display space the sidewalk could continue into the site and connect with the proposed "paver" walkway. Please see the red -lined copy of the Site Plan that is enclosed. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the Staff Meeting on December 10, 1997: 17. The height of the display pads has to be limited to be in compliance with City Code. 18. Cross -sections from South College Avenue to the auto display areas, to show the relationship of the detention ponds and retaining walls, should be submitted for review. Details for the retaining walls and railings should also be submitted. 19. Additional right-of-way along South College Avenue or a public access easement must be dedicated for the detached sidewalk. 20. The existing sanitary sewer that runs north - south across the property needs to be included in a utility easement. 21. The existing trees along the south property line need to be labeled "to be retained" on the Site and Landscape Plans. 22. Why is it necessary to include the three display pads along the south side of the entry drive? What makes them "special' display pads? 23. There appears to be a significant gradient change from the back of sidewalk to the retaining walls. What is the vertical drop in these areas? There is a concern about the safety for pedestrians. More landscaping is needed to create a good physical barrier to keep pedestrians off the walls. 24. The plantings along the display areas and the entry drive need to be "beefed- up". Please see the copy of the red -lined Landscape Plan that is enclosed. 25. The maximum allowable width of the entry drive is 35". The driveway aisle into the south display area is too narrow. 9. Eric Bracke of Traffic Operations stated that there are questions and concerns regarding the access point on U.S. 287 (South College Avenue). Recirculation to "Fossil Boulevard" is unclear and needs to be nailed down. 10. A copy of the comment sheet from Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist dealing with water conservation standards for landscapes, is attached to this letter. 11. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department stated that the proposal reflects a nice handling of landscaping and sidewalks. However, you should be careful with the block wall along the sidewalk. That product can have a temporary or suburban residential appearance, which could detract from the commercial development, especially if the top has to have steps to follow the grades. It would seem to make more sense if the wall were only back against the parking areas. These comments are made simply to be helpful but do not represent a request to change the plans. 12. Matt Fater of the Stormwater Utility stated that a drainage plan and report is needed for this site. Please include them with your resubmittal. 13. Michael Dean of the Engineering Department offered the following comments: a. The access point onto South College Avenue is shown as 36' wide. Standard D-10 of the Design and Construction Criteria. Standards and Specifications for Streets Sidewalks. Alleys and Other Public Ways, July 1996 indicates that the maximum allowable width is 351 . b. Provide a Pedestrian Access Easement for the sidewalk along South College Avenue or dedicate additional right-of-way to the back of the sidewalk. C. The vertical drop-off, behind the sidewalk, for the detention pond raises safety concerns. Provide a rail or extend the height of the wall to solve this problem. Also, provide retaining wall and railing design details. d. A portion of the planter retaining wall lies over a storm sewer line. No structures can be placed over easements. e. The parking/display area dimensions do not meet Table 4 of the City Standards. Please contact Michael, at 221-6750, if you have questions about these comments. 6. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Include a Planting Note on the Landscape Plan regarding installation of landscaping, escrow or letter of credit prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy in accordance with Section 3.2.1(1)(5) of the LUC. b. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) of the LUC requires that trees be provided at 1 tree per 25 lineal feet along the public street (South College Avenue). The trees as shown are 40' on -center, probably because of the street light - tree separation requirement. As a option, compliance with Section 3.2.1(D)(2)(c) could be deemed applicable. This allows for substitution of ornamental trees in lieu of shade trees, which decreases the separation requirement between street lights and trees. C. Are the trees that are shown along the south property line existing? If so, are they to remain? If they are on the adjacent property to the south, what happens if the owner removes? There needs to be assurance that the proper landscaping is provided along this property line. d. Auto display areas(on pavers or concrete areas) cannot be elevated above the surrounding asphalt and treatment of the areas must not construe the vehicles as signage as per the City's definition (in drawing attention). e. General Note 1 on the Site Plan refers to the "subdivision plat", but the legal description indicates that this is not part of a subdivision. Is the property not subdivided? Did Larimer County not require the property to be subdivided with the change in use and issuance of a building permit? f. This site is allowed only one ID sign and the Landscape Plan shows two (the Site Plan shows only one). g. The project supposedly has 8 customer parking spaces with the PDP boundary. Where are they? They need to be labeled and dimensioned on the plan. Please contact Peter or Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 7. A copy of the comments received from Sharon Getz of the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 8. Roger Frasco of the Poudre Fire Authority stated that the vehicle driveway at the south entrance to the display areas should be increased in width to 20' to allow for fire equipment access. Commu. y Planning and Environmental -vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins December 17, 1997 Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Eldon, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the SPRADLEY BARR Vehicle Display Area - Project Development Plan/Final Compliance request that was submitted to the City on November 17, 1997, and would like to offer the following comments` 1. This request is for the front portion of the automobile dealership that is currently under construction on South College Avenue, south of Harmony Road. The property was previously owned and occupied by Poudre Valley REA. 2. This development proposal (being a 'vehicle sales establishment with outdoor storage' in the C - Commercial Zoning District) is a Type II, Planning and Zoning Board review under the City's new Land Use Code (LUC). 3. Rusty Guyton of TCI of Fort Collins (cable television) stated that they have no problems with the proposal at this time; however, they would like to see a plat of this area showing a utility easement along South College Avenue. TCI would also like to see a utility easement along the west property line between Spradley Barr and the railroad tracks. 4. A copy of the comments received from Susan Peterson of U.S. West is attached to this letter. 5. Terry Farrill, Systems Engineer for the Fort Collins - Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District stated that the Districts have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and have no objections or comments. He can be reached at 226-3104, ext. 14, if you have need to contact him. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020