HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE MARKET PLACE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 21-89 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2)Develol&nt Services IS
Planning Department
April 20, 1989
Gene Yergenson
Yergenson, Obering, Whittaker
115 S. Weber, Suite 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Dear Gene:
Staff has reviewed the Market Place PUD Preliminary and has the following
comments to make:
1. Four inch fire service lines may not be sufficient to supply fire sprinkler
systems due to low water pressure in the area. Four inch service lines are
permissible if sprinkler systems can be calculated to the available pressure
(see attached flow information).
2. Water and sewer mains must be stubbed into the
property from
both
Troutman and JFK and must be
used or abandoned.
Interior water mains
should connect to Troutman, JFK
and an existing stub
in the Fountainhead
shopping area. A repay is due
for the Warren Lake Trunk Sewer.
The
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District has an existing
main in College
and
several taps are stubbed into the
property from this
main. The taps
may
be used for irrigation or must be
abandoned.
3. Proposed utility easements appear to be adequate for Public Service
Company. Planting of trees in these easements must be closely coordinated
with utility companies. No trees should be planted closer than 6' to any
natural gas line. Further coordination of this item will occur at final
review.
4. Construction of the right-in/out access on College Avenue will require a
State Highway Access Permit. Evaluation of the needed decel lane along
the site will be based on review of the traffic impact analysis, which to
date, has not been submitted. As designed, the decel lane may be too
short.
5. The driveway location at the northwest corner of the site (near Pad A) is
located too close to the intersection with College Avenue and should be
deleted.
6. Dedication of Troutman Parkway needs to occur with this project. A deed
of dedication for the right-of-way should be provided so that the
dedication may progress immediately.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (303) 221-6750
Page 2 •
•
7. The following Storm Drainage comments and questions have been received:
- Basin delineations are incomplete. Does sub -basin A include the area to
the crown of College Avenue?
- Is the offsite flow for Fountainhead PUD (7.6 cfs) sheetflow or
concentrated?
- Documentation of proposed release rate and agreement from Larimer #2
Irrigation Company to accept stormwater discharge must be provided at
final review, or the ditch company may review and sign on final utility
plans.
- Final drainage plans must include detailed sizing calculations as well as
capacity checks of streets and outfall facilities.
- Show flow rates leaving the site and indicate how far and where the
major outfall is, on the drainage plan.
8. Any existing trees on the site should be shown on the site plan and an
indication of whether they will be retained or removed should also be
provided.
9. The final plat should not show parking and/or building envelopes.
10. Building envelopes, with dimensions, need to be shown on the site plan.
11. Materials and height of the proposed screening wall need to be shown.
12. All plans should reflect the title of the project as The Market Place PUD
Preliminary.
13. Several items are not shown consistently on the plat and site plan.
Examples include the location of the sidewalk along College Avenue, the
right-in/out access point on College Avenue and islands in the parking
area.
14. Seventeen foot long parking stalls require a 2' overhang, using a minimum
6' walk or landscaped area for the overhang. The parking stalls located
along the north edge of the site (along access from College) will interfere
with traffic in this area. This parking should be eliminated.
15. Clarification is needed on how the drive -through on Pad B would work (ie.
entrance/exit, menu board location, pick-up window location(s)).
16. Loading and trash receptacles/pickup need to be addressed for Pads A and
B.
17. Clarification is needed on how the proposed expansion would work for Pad
C.
18. The following comments apply to general parking lot design:
- Parking distribution appears uneven, with too much of the parking
located where the demand is the least. Pads A and B should be shifted
closer to the street, with parking placed east of the pads. This would
provide a more pleasing streetscape along the site's College frontage, as
well as improve the parking distribution.
Page 3 + 0
- Parking aisles should line-up throughout the parking lot.
- Landscaped islands should be provided at the ends of all parking aisles,
to provide definition of traffic flow.
- Aisle widths throughout the parking area may be 24' (20' where parking
is single -loaded.
- Parking in front of Buildings C-F should be deleted, to provide this as a
major route through the parking lot, as well as to open the pedestrian
areas in the front of buildings.
- Additional pedestrian connections should be provided through the parking
lot (as provided in front of Building F).
19. The following comments apply to the landscape plan:
- Pines should be eliminated from parking lot islands and replaced with
deciduous trees. Each island should have at least two deciduous trees.
- Additional shrub beds should be provided along the site's College Avenue
frontage.
- Foundation plantings and planters should be addressed for Buildings D-G.
- Additional landscape screening should be provided along the sides and
backs of proposed buildings and in particular, along the proposed
drive -up on Pad B.
20. Setbacks along College Avenue, Troutman and JFK are inadequate.
Minimum setbacks should be 45' from right-of-way, consistent with the
Pavilion PUD to the south.
21. The proposed signs along College Avenue appear to be too large and should
be reduced, both in size and height. Preliminary information regarding
proposed building signage should be provided, if known.
22. Building elevations, particularly along the backs of buildings and for
Building G, should be re-evaluated, to consider the use of additional
materials, treatment and/or color, as a means of providing greater visual
relief and interest.
23. Planning staff has serious concerns regarding the orientation of this project,
d with the back of the project toward JFK Parkway. This street is ajt
�. tud r_ le r street and is intended to provide re -circulation alternatives to
College Avenue. While the interest in orienting a regional/community center
to College Avenue may be strong, this site has the potential to gain even
greater visibility through taking advantage of orientation to three
significant streets, rather than focusing solely on College Avenue. Thus,
staff believes this project should be re -designed to take advantage of
visibility of all three streets in the area, rather than turning the backs of
the building on public rights -of -way.
24. Planning staff is also concerned regarding the status of the out -parcel in
the southeast corner of the site. As designed, the proposed development
has essentially precluded access to this site. While staff has encouraged
the inclusion of this out -parcel into the overall development plan, we
realize this may not be feasible; however, this issue needs to be given
serious consideration so that future access/development for this site is not
precluded.
•
I have scheduled a meeting on this project for Tuesday, April 25 at 11:00 A.M.
in the Planning Conference Room. Staff from the Planning, Engineering and
Traffic Departments will be present to discuss these comments and concerns
with you. Revisions addressing these comments must be submitted by noon on
Wednesday, May 3, 1989. The number of plans to be submitted for revisions
will be determined, based on the nature of expected changes. Please be aware
that if revisions are significant, what is essentially a new review of the project
will be necessary. By Tuesday, May 15, 1989 ten (10) folded sets of the site
plan, a colored rendering (unfolded) and an 8-1/2" x 11" PMT reduction must
be submitted for the Board meeting May 22.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
A
aa� -
Sherry Al son -Clark, AICP
Senior Cit Tanner
cc: Don Parsons, Parsons and Associates
Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director
Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator
file
L 1 1
REASON FOR TEST: BID GEN'L INFO. DESIGUgjj&xOTHER
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Tra�-}rna.) �rk w��l
3. DATE & TIME OF TEST: DATE: �7- 15- 257 TIME: — I, 00 (AM) PM)
,. TEST CONDUCTED BY: TITLE & AFFILIATION: SProj'x , Itisp f? F A.
;. TEST WITNESSED BY: STITLE & AFFILIATION: Tr�s�cc-tsar {�,f=. A.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
;. AREA MAP: (Show property location, hydrant numbers & locations, & label streets)
(Show street mains, size & material, when possible.)
Water system is supplied by: Gravity
Pump Both
3. Water system pressure is is not controlled by PRV Stations.
3.
10,
11.
(If so, where are they and what is their outlet pressure?)
Other
ItJI UHIH
STATIC TAKEN
AT HYDRANT I
STATIC
PSIG
RESIDUAL
PSIG
EQUIVALENT
GPM
OUTLET
COEFF.
ADJUSTED_
GPM
REMARKS
HYDRANT If
FLOWED
g
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
0109-7
so
841
Plot graph on attached sheet.
Charae for flow test $
12. Customer/P.O. W.
Coal" O.VD.Out-
let smooth and
well rounded
SIGNED
Coal" 0.70.Out- Cwi. 0.50"Ou
lot souer• and let square and
sharp projectlnp Intl
barrel
WITNESSED
C.
m
;-0%TRACT NAME:
FLOW TEST
120
115
SUMMARY SHEET
110
105
0
45
0
(=low
LO -1
65
0
r�.
75
70
l
65
�o
.55
50
45
.35
O
25
0
Used_C__—
15
SN
I.e5
700 yr,0 1000 Scale A
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
400 600 1200 1600 2000 2400
1400 800
00
2800 32
00
2000 Scale B
4000 Scale C
FLOW - GPM
1 8 rjr)
3600