The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMAVERIK CONVENIENCE STORE & FUEL SALES - PDP - PDP150028 - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONSFebruary 8, 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, First Review Dear Ted, Please see the following responses to the comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for the resubmittal of the above referenced project. Review Number 1 Response Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: The Plat boundary does not match the extent of the land development associated with the Site Plan. Is there any particular reason why the Plat does not include Lot 17of the Interchange Business Park? The Plat indicates that Lot 17 is “not a part” when, in fact, it is a part of the development. When the Building Permit is submitted and assessed for fees, the applicant will have to submit both the Plat and the Site Plan in order to properly assess all the fees that are based on land area since the two do not match. And, the Site Plan does not show the lot line. Response Number: 1 The Plat boundary has been revised and now includes Lot 17 of the Interchange Business Park as a part of Maverik Subdivision. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: The Site Plan and Landscape Plan do not match with regard to the layout of the parking spaces, landscape islands and connecting walkways. Response Number: 2 The Site Plan and Landscape Plan have been revised and both are identical in terms of the parking 1 spaces, landscape islands and walkways. 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 Streetfront Buildings. Response Number: 3 A Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.3(C)(2) Orientation to Build-to Lines for Streetfront Buildings is included with this submittal. 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 2.8.2(H)(1-4) provides the four criteria by which a Modification of Standard 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.” Response Number: 4 Section 2.8.2(H)(1-4) has been reviewed and an outline is included with this submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: In response, since Conceptual Review, Staff acknowledges that several enhancements have been made to the northeast area of the site including the rest stop features. To directly address the purpose of the standard, however, the development plan needs to provide better walkway connections to all public streets. Response Number: 5 The revised plan delineates sidewalk connections and crosswalks to provide a pedestrian corridor for all parts of the development as well as direction to the surrounding areas through the use of crosswalks and connections to existing walkways. 2 Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: For example, the walkway connection to the southeast should be more direct, and not make two 90-degree turns. Curves should be softened. It should tie directly to the crosswalk on the S.E. Frontage Road. It is not clear if this walkway continues in front of the parking spaces to the building entrance. If so, this walkway should be labeled and be no less than six feet in width to account for vehicle overhang. This walkway should be prominent and convenient as pedestrians from Otter Box and other employees within the Interchange Business Park will treat the store as a logical destination. Response Number: 6 The pedestrian walkways throughout the Site Plan have been revised to addressed curvature and access to all areas of the development and surrounding areas. Abrupt 90 degree angles have been removed and replaced with soft curves except at intersections where pedestrian ramps have been placed in order to provide for the shortest distance across a travelled roadway. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: In addition, a crosswalk needs to be added across the southeast driveway. Response Number: 7 The crosswalk has been added to the Site Plan Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Similarly, there is no connecting walkway to the northwest to tie into the roadway along the north property line. This walk also must be provided a crosswalk across the drive that ties into the walkway in front of the store near the patio area. Response Number: 8 Walkways have been added around the perimeter of the proposed Plat and crosswalk added across the drive isles. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Please note that crosswalks must be either upgraded with a ramp, or speed table, that indicates to motorists to exercise caution, or at least be treated with a different material distinct from asphalt paving. Response Number: 9 The crosswalks will be treated with brick pavers to help drivers differentiate the crossing. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 3 01/06/2016: The Comment Summary indicates that 22 spaces are provided. The Site Plan indicates 45 spaces and the Landscape Plan indicates 55 spaces. Please be sure both plans are consistent. As discussed, the project is eligible for the 20% bonus since parking is not allowed on the two adjoining streets. Also, as discussed, the project can apply the ratio of 7 spaces per 1,000 for the 500 square feet of indoor space devoted to Fast Food Restaurant but be sure to then subtract 500 square feet from the Retail category. Please note that if the number of spaces slightly exceeds the allowable maximum, and can be justified based on the program, number of employees, or other factors, that Section 3.2.2(K)(3) allows for consideration of additional parking spaces under the Alternative Compliance provision. If the proposed number of spaces is not justified per the Alternative Compliance criteria, then the applicant may submit Request for Modification under 2.8.2(H)(1) per the “equal to or better” criterion based on the extent of impact mitigation. Response Number: 10 The Site Plan and Landscape Plan are now consistent. The is a total of 30 parking spaces on the revised plan. The parking count was determined as follows: 1 parking space per 1,000 sf of restaurant, 1 parking space per 1,000 sf of retail, 1 parking space per 1,000 sf of park and recreation Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Please consider how to better connect the rest stop features with both the perimeter public sidewalks and the internal walkway network so this area is connected to the surrounding network and not isolated. Response Number: 11 The Site Plan has been revised to provide better pedestrian connectivity for both the internal circulation as well as the circulation outside of the development. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016:Similarly, the walkway on the northwest side of the building that aligns with the patio needs to be continued to tie into the hotel parking lot so hotel guests have access to the store without traversing the drive aisles and parking. Response Number: 12 The sidewalk has been extended to the hotel parking area. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Overall, as proposed with the building orientation and the number of parking spaces, and to satisfy the criterion for justifying Modifications, the site 4 needs to perform at a higher level with regard to pedestrian connectivity. Response Number: 13 We believe the revised Site Plan has been upgraded with enhanced pedestrian circulation features and will perform at a high level to achieve compliance with the Modification to Standards. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: The Landscape Plan does not provide for street trees. Deciduous shade trees (2-inch caliper minimum) must be provided along the perimeter of the site, in the parkway, at no greater than 40-foot intervals. Where there are street lights, street trees must be kept 40 feet away and Ornamental trees (1 ½ inch caliper minimum) may fill in the gap and be placed up to within 15 feet of street lights. Staff estimates that given the perimeter of the site along roadways, 17 street trees are needed. Light and Power can provide the location of any new street lights. Response Number: 14 The landscape plan has been updated to provide deciduous shade trees along the perimeter of the site. 17 trees have been added. 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. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: For the long term health of the street trees, the parkway width must be no less than six feet, not including the top of the curb. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: The Landscape Plan does not include any Evergreen Trees. For commercial development, the Hoopsi and Bacheri Spruce have proven effective. For areas that are more confined, the Iseli Fastigiate (Columnar) Spruce and Rocky Mountain Juniper are recommended. Please revise the Landscape Plan accordingly. Response Number: 17 The landscape plan has been updated to include Evergreen Trees 5 Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: All shrub beds must be planted with a sufficient number of shrubs to cover the bed at maturity. Response Number: 18 All shrub beds have been updated to be planted with a sufficient number of shrubs to cover the bed at maturity. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Where there are two parking rows that face streets (northwest and southeast), the parking must be screened with landscaping or a low screen wall per Section 3.2.1(E)(4). Response Number: 19 Landscape added to add screening for the parking facing streets per Section 3.2.1 (E)(4) Code. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: The Landscape Plan must indicate the location and width of all public sidewalks and private walkways consistent with the Site Plan. Response Number: 20 Width of sidewalks updated on Landscape Plan to be consistent with site plan. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: The Landscape Plan should indicate that the existing tree walls along the north each contain a mature Juniper and that these trees should be preserved. Also, the existing trees north of the detention pond should be specifically called out to be preserved and not just ghosted in. ` Response Number: 21 Note added to Landscape Plan of tree counts. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Staff is concerned that chain link fencing, while appropriate for industrial settings, is not of sufficient quality at this highly visible location. Staff recommends a fence that is more conducive to the desired effect of the rest stop area. For example, please consider a four foot high wood fence, with cap, 4’ x 4’ posts with cap, and 1” x 4” pickets with 2” spacing to allow for wind and visibility. Other materials and design variations may be acceptable but not chain link or other industrial-type fencing. Response Number: 22 6 Chain link fence changed to a 3 foot wrought iron fence with 3” bar spacing. 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. ` Response Number: 23 #14- while attempting to comply with corporate standards we have added additional detail this building that is not part of any other store (decorative wall sconces at side of building, decorative pilasters at rear of building, detailed cornice at rear of building, burnished block enclosure at rear, fuel dispenser canopy design. #15 – we feel that the building does have distinctive base/middle/top with the masonry wainscot, the fibercement board and batten siding broken up with decorative pilasters, and the built-up fibercement cornice. #16 – please refer to updated elevations showing cornice across entire rear of building (upper and lower portions of building) #17 – please refer to updated prospective drawing #18 – please refer to updated elevations, gooseneck fixtures have been included #19 – please refer to detail 3/A2.2 #20 – please refer to updated canopy design A2.4 #21 – please refer to updated canopy design A2.4 Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: For example, on architectural elevation sheet A2.1, please provide a detail on the coping that is specified for the top of the wall. As 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. Response Number: 24 Please refer to clarification detail 3/A2.2 Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Please review Conceptual Review comments 14 – 21 carefully and make the necessary revisions. Response Number: 25 #14- while attempting to comply with corporate standards we have added additional detail this building that is not part of any other store (decorative wall sconces at side of building, decorative pilasters at rear of building, detailed cornice at rear of building, burnished block enclosure at rear, fuel dispenser canopy 7 design. #15 – we feel that the building does have distinctive base/middle/top with the masonry wainscot, the fibercement board and batten siding broken up with decorative pilasters, and the built-up fibercement cornice. #16 – please refer to updated elevations showing cornice across entire rear of building (upper and lower portions of building) #17 – please refer to updated prospective drawing #18 – please refer to updated elevations, gooseneck fixtures have been included #19 – please refer to detail 3/A2.2 #20 – please refer to updated canopy design A2.4 #21 – please refer to updated canopy design A2.4 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. Response Number: 26 Please refer to updated canopy design 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 I-25 Sub Area Plan standards per Section 3.9.5(B). Response Number: 27 Please refer to updated canopy design A2.4 Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Again, for emphasis (Conceptual Review comment number 21), Staff strongly recommends that the canopy columns be clad in a masonry product and not be simply vertical steel beams. This comment is made with the full knowledge that per architectural note number three, columns are intended to contain graphics that speak to the branding of being an outdoor adventure stop. Staff finds this to be an inappropriate use of a building component as an advertising device and would violate Section 3.5.3(E). (Please see Conceptual Review comment number 13.) 8 Response Number: 28 Please refer to updated canopy design A2.4 Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Again for emphasis (Conceptual Review comment number 22), the canopy fascia will not be allowed to colored “scarlet red” as this colors appears to be a part of the logo and, therefore, defined as a sign. A more muted color is recommended. Staff is not familiar with the color “oyster.” Please provide a manufacturer’s card number for the selected colors. Response Number: 29 Please refer to updated canopy design A2.4, “oyster” is a color by the canopy fabricator that matches buildings fiber cement siding Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016:In 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.” Response Number: 30 The note has been added to the Site Plan Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Conceptual Review comment number 33 has not been addressed. There are multiple convenience stores in the area that sell propane either in individual containers or by refilling individual containers from a large tank. Will propane sales be part of the program? Will there be an outdoor ice machine? Will there be an air station for tires? Will there be an r.v pump-out facility? Please indicate where, if it all, these appurtenances will be located and how they do not interfere with walkways, landscaping and traffic circulation. Response Number: 31 The proposed store will provide individual single tank propane sales. These containers will be locked in a cage in front of the store. There will also be an ice machine and tire filling station as delineated on the revised site plan. There will not be an R-V pump out facility. 9 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. Response Number: 32 See attached letter. 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. Response Number: 33 See attached letter. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Sexton, 970-221-6501, ksexton@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Improvements need to be completed along the frontage of the entire replat. Sidewalk along the frontage road should connect to the Air Care Colorado sidewalk east of the property. Response Number: 2 The revised Site Plan provides for pedestrian improvements along the platted boundaries. The sidewalk along the Frontage Road to the Air Care development is not within the subject property. This section of the Frontage Road is also located in the County. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: A drainage easement will need to be dedicated on the plat to accommodate the detention pond. Please submit a letter of intent from the adjacent property owner which indicates they will provide the offsite drainage easement. Response Number: 3 The required easement for the detention pond has been delineated on the proposed Plat. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 10 01/05/2016: The plat labels Interchange Business Park Lot 17 as being "Not a Part" but the property is shown as part of the development in the plans. Typically plat boundaries match development boundaries. This allows for a smoother building permit process later on. Response Number: 4 The Plat has been revised and now includes Lot 17 within its boundaries. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: All fences should be setback at least 2 feet from the sidewalk per LCUASS Figure 16-1. Response Number: 5 Fences have been placed 2-feet from walkways Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Add north arrow to vicinity map on the utility plans. Response Number: 6 The north arrow has been added Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970-221-6573, slangenberger@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2015 12/21/2015: The TDRFees for the PDP were not calculated correctly. An additional $1,185.89 is due for the project. Response Number: 1 The check for $1,185.89 is included with the submittal Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/30/2015 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. 11 Response Number: 3 Chain link fence changed to a 3 foot wrought iron fence with 3” bar spacing. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/30/2015 12/30/2015: Consider adding groups of evergreen shrubs (e.g., junipers) along the fenceline near the rest area, playground, and pet area. This would provide both screening and additional habitat for birds and other wildlife. Response Number: 4 The landscape plan has been updated to include Evergreen Trees. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 12/30/2015 12/30/2015: Street trees should be planted along both street frontages (30-40 ft spacing), per LUC section 3.2.1. Response Number: 5 The landscape plan has been updated to provide deciduous shade trees along the perimeter of the site. 17 trees have been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/30/2015 12/30/2015: Consider the use of bark mulch rather than gravel mulch in the planting beds. Response Number: 6 Landscape plan changed to have bark mulch in planting beds rather than gravel mulch. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/30/2015 12/30/2015: Please extend the photometric calculations on the lighting plan to 20 feet beyond the property line in all directions. Light levels cannot exceed 0.1 foot-candle (as a direct result of the on-site lighting) at or beyond 20 feet from the property line. The proposed lighting does not meet this requirement in a number of locations. See Land Use Code Section 3.2.4(D)(8) for reference. Response Number: 1 See attached letter. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/30/2015 12/30/2015: In regard to LED light fixtures, cooler color temperatures are 12 harsher at night and cause more disruption to circadian rhythms for both humans and wildlife. Please consider a warmer color temperature (closer to 2700K) for your LED light fixtures, and specify the chosen Kelvin temperature for each fixture. Please also consider fixtures with dimming capabilities so that light levels can be adjusted as needed. Response Number: 2 See attached letter. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/08/2016 01/08/2016: If there are existing trees on the site contact the City Forester, Tim Buchanan (221 6361) for an on-site meeting to obtain inventory and if needed mitigation information to incorporate into the plans. Response Number: 1 There are no existing trees onsite Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/08/2016 01/08/2016: Place the City of Fort Collins standard landscape notes on the plan. If there are existing trees to retain then also place the City of Fort Collins Tree protection notes. These notes are available from the City Forester. Response Number: 2 City of Fort Collins standard landscape notes added to plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2016 01/08/2016: Prairie Fire Crabapple has a broad spreading crown form and has some susceptibility to the disease fire blight. Radiant crabapple is a similar red flowering crab that is more upright and has good resistance. Evaluate using Radiant Crabapple in place of Prairie Fire. Response Number: 3 Radiant Crabapple added in place of Prairie Fire Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/08/2016 01/08/2016: 13 Use of a canopy shade tree in the parking peninsula area off the North east corner of the building would provide increased beneficial shade and a larger landscape scale to this prominent building corner location. Also evaluate adding two canopy shade trees on either side of the entrance to the site from the frontage road. Response Number: 4 Shade trees added to the NE corner of the building and shade trees added along the street frontage. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russell Hovland, 970-416-2341, rhovland@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 meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi-family projects are 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 A117.1-2009. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. 14 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 We will schedule a building permit pre-submittal meeting after the annexation has been approved by City Council. Department: Light And Power Contact: Coy Althoff, , CAlthoff@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 Noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015 12/29/2015: Development charges, electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges and any system modification charges necessary will apply 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. We will show these locations on the utility plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2015 15 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.fcgov.com/utils-procedures/files/EngWiki/WikiPdfs/C/C-1Form.pdf Response Number: 5 Noted 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 Noted. Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@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 16 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 Emergency Access Route follows the alignment of the emergency Access Easement which terminates at public right-of-ways on both sides of the development. Full access is provide to the hotel and cross access easements have been placed on the Plat. Minimum turning radii have been maintained. 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 Noted Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Dan Mogen, 970-221-6700 , dmogen@fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Please document the existing and proposed impervious areas. It is important to have a good understanding of these changes to properly apply drainage requirements and fees. This includes showing existing paved areas 17 and changes to pavement, which will allow determination of the Low Impact Development (LID) requirements which require that 25% of vehicle use pavements be pervious and 50% of impervious area being treated by LID techniques. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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 http://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. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The City of Fort Collins does not use full-spectrum detention or Excess Urban Runoff Volume (EURV). Please revise according to City of Fort Collins Criteria. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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 requirement or for assistance with the spreadsheet. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Please provide an easement for the detention pond. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Please note that additional comments may be forthcoming upon future submittals as additional details are discovered. Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/10/2015 18 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 @ jschlam@fcgov.com Response 1 Erosion control plan, report and escrow calculation are included. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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: 12 Information has been added to title block Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response Number: 13 Please see updated elevations Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Response Number: 14 Please see updated elevations Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Please change the title to "Lot 1, Maverik Subdivision Filing No. 1". See redlines. 19 Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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: BENCHMARK # 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’. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: This plan set should be numbered separately from the Site Plans. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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 Added to Landscape Plan. 20 Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Response Number: 10 Text arranged. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: There are text over text issues. See redlines. Response Number: 11 Text arranged. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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 See attached letter. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: A full review will take place when the Plat is submitted following the City’s submittal requirements. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Please make sure all plat language is the most current City language. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 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 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The other plans are improvements being made on Lot 17, Interchange Business Park. Why not include Lot 17 as part of this Plat? Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 21 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. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The titles & sheet numbers in the sheet index do not match the titles & sheet numbers on the noted sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: The TIS is in review with CDOT. We'll forward any comments from them to you. The recommendation for an all-way stop at the property entrance and frontage road in the long term will require discussion. Response Number: 1 Comment noted Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Was the signal timing assumed in the report for the SH14 / Frontage Road intersection the actual timing in the field? Due to the mobile home park entrance on the north side, the timing is very specialized and should be reflected in the report. Response Number: 2 The analyses for existing conditions assumed split phasing for northbound and southbound movements, similar to the timing observed in the field. Future conditions assumed signal timing improvements to maintain acceptable operations. Pending review comments from CDOT, the analyses can be updated to reflect CDOT signal timing plans. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: We'll need to work with CDOT on whether the crosswalk across the frontage road will be allowed (crosswalks not typical at intersections that are not stop controlled unless warranted). If it is, then a receiving ramp terminal on 22 the east side would need to be constructed. Response Number: 3 The recommendation for the crosswalk is based on the potential for pedestrians crossing the frontage road to get to the convenience store. The MUTCD does provide for crosswalks on uncontrolled approaches, and we have specified advance warning signs and the sidewalk ramp. Pending review comments from CDOT, please note that the approach would be controlled if the intersection goes to all-way stop. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/06/2016 01/06/2016: Is there adequate sight distance for left turns out of the property? Response Number: 4 Site distances have been check for all ingress and egress points. There is clear sight distance looking left all the way to Mulberry (about 380-400 feet away). Looking right, the sight distance could be limited by the horizontal curvature and downgrade along the frontage road south of the site. It is estimated, however, that clear sight distance exists for about 400 feet to the south. At 30 MPH, 360 feet of entering sight distance would be needed, based on CDOT criteria for multi-lane roads. 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 Noted on Irrigation Plan. Department: Zoning Contact: Ali van Deutekom, 970-416-2743, avandeutekom@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: There is an 8 foot tall chain link fence shown on the rear elevation, is this for screening purposes? If so, we do not allow chain link to be used for screening purposes. Response Number: 1 Please see updated elevations for burnish block wall 23 Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: Please provide detail elevations of the trash enclosure. Response Number: 2 Please refer to 3/A2.3 Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The maximum number of parking spaces you can provide is 22. 45 spaces seems excessive and will require significant thought be put into an alternative compliance proposal. Response Number: 1 The maximum number of parking has been determined to be 33. Please see calculations below. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2016 01/05/2016: The enclosed bicycle space would most likely be utilized by an employee so it may make sense to move the locker near the building or provide a space inside the store? Response Number: 2 The locker has been located adjacent to the store front. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding these responses. Sincerely ATWELL, LLC Byron J. Glenn, PE, MBA Project Manager 24