Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
NORTH LEMAY PLAZA PUD - PRELIMINARY - 57-87 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS
ITEM No. 16 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF October 26, 1987 I STAFF REPORT I PROJECT; North Lemay Plaza PUD - Preliminary - #57=87 APPLICANT: Gefroh-Hattman, Inc. OWNER: BB Investments, Inc. 135 West Swallow Rd. 4800 Happy Canyon Fort Collins, CO 80525 Suite 23 Denver, CO PRWECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a preliminary PUD for a conve- nience store with gasoline sales and a retail building. The site measures 1.78 acres and is located at the southwest corner of Conifer and Lemay Ave- nue. The zoning is R.L-M, Low Density Multi -Family. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The project scores 50% on the Auto Related and Roadside Commercial point chart. The design objective is to provide landscaped set- backs and orient the active areas internally towards the site. To promote neighborhood compatibility, landscaping has been provided off -site in the area of the detention pond and along the street frontage of Conifer Street. A monitoring well would be placed near the pond to gauge the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. There are several conditions of approval which relate to a plan check for energy conservation, a definitive phasing plan, a plan for procuring a water tap for off -site irrigation, reduced signage for neighborhood compatibility, and a refined Traffic Impact Analy- sis. OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 o Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750 SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT North Lemay Plaza PUD - Preliminary - #57-87 P & Z Meeting - October 26, 1987 Page COMMENTS 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RLP; Residential S: RLP; Residential E: FA-l(Ccunty); Residential W: RLM; Vacant (detention pond) The site is made up of Lots 18 and 19 of the Evergreen Park Third Filing Subdivision which was approved in 1977. 2. Land Use: The project achieves a score of 50% on the Auto Related and Roadside Com- mercial point chart which is the minimum required score to meet the loca- tional and design criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. The proposal benefits from not being at two arterials, being part of a mixed - use project, exceeding the model energy code, and having contiguity with existing urban development. Staff is concerned about the credit given for energy conservation. The criterion under the LDGS requires that the proposed demonstrate energy con- servation measures that go beyond City Code. Staff would like to review evidence on energy conservation performance prior to final. Staff there- fore, recommends as a condition of approval, that construction documents and an HVAC document be submitted for a plan check to the Building Inspec- tion Division prior to final. 3. Design: The orientation of the convenience store is towards the interior of the site. The customer parking, store entrance, gas pumps and gas canopy are pulled away from Conifer and Lemay and shielded by perimeter landscaping. The short axis of the canopy is parallel to Lemay to minimize the exposure to Lemay Avenue. The convenience store building is softened by the 4 foot landscaped berm on the exterior walls facing Conifer and Lemay. The building itself is brick with a sloped roof featuring wood shake shingles. The setback off Lemay would be 49 feet and the setback off Conifer would be 45 feet. The retail building would be setback off Conifer by 40 feet. The architec- ture would match the convenience store and feature brick, sloped roof, and wood shake shingles. North Lemay Plaza PUD - Preliminary - #57-87 P & Z Meeting - October 26, 1987 Page The setbacks allow the street frontage to be heavily landscaped with deci- duous street trees as well as ornamental trees and shrub beds. The street trees exceed the policy of the City Arborist that plantings be spaced every 40 feet. Because of the length of exposure along Lemay Avenue (arterial) and Conifer (collector), and the importance of these streets, the Staff is recommending as a condition, that larger than minimum caliper trees be pro- vided along the frontage. The south property line contains existing mature cottonwoods and an irriga- tion ditch. The existing trees will remain and the area of the ditch will feature a berm. The bean will contain additional tree and shrub areas to screen the parking lot. 4. Off --Site Improvements: The west side of the retail building features a 15 foot service drive. Adjacent to this service drive is a city -owned retention pond. The Storm - water utility and the Department of Natural Resources have indicated that this pond would be upgraded to promote a natural area. In response to this upgrading of the retention pond, the developer is willing to provide off - site landscaping adjacent to the service drive and along the frontage on Conifer. The plantings along the service drive would attempt to screen the building while the trees along Conifer would be planted every 40 feet to promote the formal streetscape. All off -site plantings would be the respon- sibility of the developer for a two year establishment period. After two years, and upon inspection, the City would accept permanent maintenance. Staff is concerned that the off -site improvements be provided in with the convenience store. Final plans should document the appropriate phasing lines. Also, Staff is concerned that off -site plantings be irrigated and established. To irrigate, the Water and Sewer Department has indicated that it would sell a water tap and, after two years, would remove the tap and refund the tap fees and raw water requirement fees. Labor and material charges, however, would be deducted from the refund. In addition to the off -site landscape improvements, the developer has responded to the concerns of the Department of Natural Resources by provid- ing a monitoring manhole to gauge the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff into the retention pond. The City's Industrial Pre -Treatment Super- visor has provided a detailed schematic showing the extent of the monitor- ing system. The location would be near the base of the slope of the pond at the outlet of the storm drainage pipe. Final design would be part of the final utility plan. 5. Neighborhood Compatibility; A neighborhood meeting was held the evening of September 1, 1987 at the Tavelli Elementary School. The minutes of the meeting are attached. There were many residents who were opposed to the project on the basis of commer- North Lemay Plaza PUD - Preliminary - #57-87 P & Z Meeting - October 26, 1987 Page vial intrusion into a residential area. Much of the discussion revolved around design mitigation techniques and how to make the use canpatible with the neighborhood. Same of the concerns were with traffic, lighting, crime, underground gasoline storage, road improvements, signage and landscaping. The developer has responded to these concerns by providing generous perime- ter landscaping, residential style architecture, improvements to Lemay Ave- nue, placement of the active areas internal to the site, and off -site landscaping on Conifer to promote neighborhood campatibility. Staff, however, remains concerned about the extent of signage. One of the key ingredients in making commercial development ccmpatible with existing residential neighborhoods is the number, size, and location of illuminated signs. Staff feels that compatibility would be enhanced if the free stand- ing group sign on Lemay were reduced to a monument sign, not exceeding six feet in height. Further, signage on the building fascia along Lemay should be eliminated as should signage on the gas pump canopy that faces Lemay. It is staff's opinion that these signage reductions would not cause a loss of competitiveness and would promote a more residential character along Lemay Avenue. 6. Transportation: The developer will be required to construct the arterial improvements for the frontage along Lemay Avenue. This would include widening of the roadway as well as constructing sidewalk, curb, and gutter, etc. The Traffic Impact Analysis must be further refined to analyze the opera- tional capacity of the Conifer and Lemay intersection. It is not known at this time whether or not design mitigation would be required to accommodate left turn movements off Conifer onto northbound Lemay. Staff is concerned that this data has not been submitted and would require that additional traffic analysis be conducted prior to final submittal. Staff is recom- mending that City Traffic Engineer review the operational level of service of Conifer and Lemay and approve of any design mitigation that may be required by the applicants. I'll k i k' ' I Di �. • Staff finds that the proposal for preliminary PUD for North Lemay Plaza meets the criteria of the LDGS. Staff recommends approval subject to the following five conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit to the Plans Examiner of the Building Inspection Division a set of plans accompanied by evidence that the building exceed City's adopted Model Energy Code. This plan check shall occur prior to final approval. 2. The applicant shall submit a landscaped phasing plan that indicates the North Lemay Plaza PUD - Preliminary - #57-87 P & Z Meeting - October 26, 1987 Page off -site landscape improvements be tied to the development of the convenience store. In addition, larger than minimum caliper trees should be provided along the frontage of Lemay and Conifer Street. 3. The applicant shall submit a Memorandum of Understanding fram the Water and Sewer Department that states the terms and conditions of the tempo- rary water tap that will be required to establish the off -site lands- cape improvements. 4. The final plan shall demonstrate reduced signage that would be more in character with the existing residential character of the area. 5. The applicant shall submit a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis that determines the operation of the Conifer and Lemay intersection. Such a study would be reviewed for approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Any improvements necessary to affect the impacts of the proposal shall be provided by the applicants. 6. That the final phase of development include landscaping of the adjacent detention area as described herein. N 'E"WAT'Al A7 VICINITY MAP NOTES AA owner _REENE attorney ' \ .� x. ~g3wr[r[ •:�a Ilt va>M zzIK1Y0a of lr> cturrr �tnM IS lieeift> IEM{1SSSIM PL YlTW1�W MIO {In NM..4®I M cOO, A�1O6 NOO1 .) f'If n LOQIn SRO P TO W1 M. 4E. n C>d WINS TIlU m.m mnLN:fswA » u IIISn1OMi,N t[fa• ON {LII YLnnn a'nI TIu ILaA• B !1• J•111: m m[ui. tl Ow uli Wt:' Rw•wew (a 1.' ,"� � � i I •lam wmo 1 1 f I.ILIa...t reo. a tv. .a>. Mxm 1 1.. .SITE !" a ram: fa °a®rci:i A.All alon xin oa.p r I[x tM 9pvippee vl[x e.Iv . w[®e[Ic yrl Mlrr >ntw. " r `I > to . aa.[l , , t x.Il Planning RAP 1 �3: •lee ew•C°etMne :ia�rm[ nlyn•cun[ar,.mt e.w. . NImtL n M II4aIK MIL i0i1K I{KO 01 Ol Lf, rr>eI c vl I I M LOLO4R t• nl{ W n I x' a74M�c v [a m. �.�.....r...a.clns LEGAL- LAND USE . CONIFER ST. .•.• s 18 MrO I9 )xlaO it ErxO EvnOaEEx v4a 4FA Ix MMSyA..—, tl NMi' °mIw.IMe• sWDnlilOx 11,71.AAEA f - {.3nq jygvpWrl .R Mrm n,)xe.nEs1 r.>6{ Al loot •-'�'�' - I ' . . . ,SfO.m sF .x63 eL - �1 R10 i _ KEe OOF r LMIOs[MIx6 15.04f.00 3r .INM xxi pp6..1 .rrT M LS rs r1,Tn.{I sr .3l• x[ rei b R. SEKEY PHASING 61 ' I COMYENI[M J. p ine m a[ I{ In[ewee [v a cmrtnuctw rn ee.el t [vo a{e>. n. v,.{t re I> m can, r at p ee[ fprrnmen[, on rr te, cur-rt ena cure cv[r e.e a w [ a! [ne I cr[ - I -_ - -STORE'-" '■e i r YI! lm en `� .mt `•uE ntlu>r d 1- -1 '- R»•'•.1. i f.RYT41tl! �, r a�w ; [ I x. Pi —Ad r �^�• I ,� Ix. l. -- _ a.i. ° ent.. [ e ,., .n[ >.can; �::. canrt.�[ �•.e.9 .,. i _ l , rte n f� N I I r RETAIL AHAA SHOPS 1.1 i A,analaurK {{ 6� — — - <Mma _RuuRs —� » "r 1 (w FO R=ORI x._•� } M � � _ �i lE t•ailK iai I _' I° S! 1{T1; Mml°:L° u.sMMc"no SANK II -NE fl _ a - ._.I t„ra W4SLWPM xfnrK mftrK - - - HE l - -- xYOILYni All NUTTEACITLI malK •- - -' - r mflLalti Kitt{ LMFREA, - li mrus [u{rt IrnIOLI =p = - •`��• - xexs�Il ' CANAL _ MWa•II 5� ___- - .g"RWE7 71�fY _ - W'+7V1 �— !'fctc AG eicN �. �—) I41MeH ;i+Nr7. SViN OLNV1 ..... -'-- rqefep SKI - �' wov 6FKK68 . � LLwllib 1 NOR H LEMAY PLAZA — PU { N60 Preliminary Plan Yrtl N. View from Lemey WwIriM�4nns+rams ,, kl wvgrtr%¢awrnreulwlrr, 0 i GMAY AVE View from Conifer at. Convenience Store Bldg. < g,unJ --Agn Retall Shop Bldg gr-, r 8 Mgr. mmwrtm.rr�oeoR pq CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Ted Shepard, City Planner DATE: November 2, 1987 RE: North Lemay Plaza - Updated Information Since the writing of the Staff Memo for the North Lemay Plaza, new informa- tion has become available regarding the monitoring manhole and the water tap for the street trees. THE MONITORING MANHOLE - CONDITION NUMBER 7 In a meeting with representatives from the Planning Department, the. Storm water Utility, the City's Industrial Pretreatment Department and the Department of Natural Resources, it was decided that the best method of monitoring stormwater runoff would be to install an standard five foot diameter manhole. This manhole would allow storm flows to be captured for testing. It is not necessary to install any -internal testing equipment. In addition, it was felt that conducting a water quality test of the pond would be necessary to establish baseline data by which future tests could be judged. The monitoring manholeRwould then allow future tests to be com- pared with the baseline and determine water quality over time. Staff, therefore, would add the condition that the developer conduct a water quality analysis on the existing retention pond. This test would analyze four areas: 1. PH content 2. Heavy metals (Group One) 3. Organics (benzene, toluene, xylene) 4. Oil and grease OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 u Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 a (303) 221-6750 GEFROH HATTIVIAN INC. ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 135 West Swallow Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 (303)223-7335 SUBMISSION INFORMATION PERTAINING TO , LAND DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE SYSTEM for the NORTH LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D. a 1.7 acre retail and convenience store development on North Lemay Avenue PREPARED BY: GEFROH HATTMAN INC. 135 West Swallow Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 PREPARED FOR: BB Investments Inc. William Geisenhagen 4800 Happy Canyon Road, Suite 230 Denver, Colorado 80237 September 4, 1987 r �r NORTH LEMAY PLAZA_P.U.D. _ 87-496 September 4, 1987 A. Statement of Appropriate City Land Use Policies Achieved by the Proposed Plan, Policy 3a. "The City shall promote maximum Utilization of the Land Within the City." Explanation: The property is situated on the West side of North Lemay Avenue, an important N-S arterial street, and is contiguous on over 50% of its boundaries to existing urban development. Currently zoned RLM, the pro- ject includes a 10,672 S.F. retail center and a 2,600 S.F. convenience store with gas pump uses to serve the existing and developing residential district. Policy 21. "All levels of commercial development, including convenience .... shopping which have significant negative transportation impacts on South College Avenue will be discouraged from gaining their primary access from College Avenue." Explanation: The Plaza is located one mile East of College on Lemay thus syphoning off the negative traffic impacts of private vehicle and transfort users, as referred to in the policy. Po_licy_22._ "Preferential consideration shall be given to urban development proposals which are contiguous to existing development within the City limits." Explanation: The Plaza enjoying 50% contiguity with existing urban development supports this policy. By its location on North Lemay, the project takes ad- vantage of existing urban level services, utilities and facilities, including police and fire protection, water, sewer, electricity, gas, telephone and cable TV. It will be served by urban level streets with curb gutter and side- walks, and bike paths giving access to the recreational areas of nearby City Park in Greenbriar. Policy 26. "Availability of existing services shall be used as a criteria in determining the location of higher intensity areas in the City." Explanation: The property is served by existing gas, water, electricity, telephone, sanitary and storm drainage facilities. Storm drainage improve- ments will be part of this development. Policy 39. The City should direct efforts to promote improved traffic and pedestrian circulation and public transit to areas North and Northeast of the City. Explanation: This project is located at the intersection of Conifer and Lemay Avenue in Northeast Fort Collins. Lemay Avenue is an important N-S link in the overall street system. This project would provide a catalyze for improvements to Lemay to occur, for.as we all are aware, street improve- ments occur when development takes place. Development to North is a key City goal and policy. Policy 49. "The City's Land Use Policies Plan shall be directed toward minimizing the use of private automobiles and toward alleviating and miti- gating the air quality impacts of concentrated use of automobiles." Explanation: The project, located in an existing residential area, encourages walking and biking to the facility, specifically from the single family de- velopments to the North and West. r W lkl NORTH LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D. Page 2 Policy 74. "Transitional land uses or areas (linear greenbelts or other ur- ban design elements) should be provided between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas in order to enhance the concept of a mixture of land uses." Explanation: The location of the storm detention area to the West of this project provides a landscaped -linear green belt open space transition between the commercial/retail uses of this project and the existing residential housing. B. Project Description The project located at the intersection of a collector and arterial provides the opportunity1Ddesign access points compatible with intended traffic volume. Two curb cuts are provided;one on Conifer Street and the other on North Lemay Avenue. The convenience store is placed to screen the gas pump area from the intersection thus reducing unsightly asphalt from exposure to the corner. Landscaping is of the utmost importance to the developer. The plan details a comprehensive high quality approach to landscape and buffering to the intersection. The turf area will be bermed 4' high around the two sides facing the corner. This has been done in response to neighborhood concerns regarding the blank brick walls of the building.. Although the building is only a single story in height, berming was felt necessary. The setbacks of 45' and 49' from the improved curb line should produce a softening affect to the corner. There are three gas pumps angled to receive traffic flows from two directions. A large landscape island to the South will screen and buffer the pumps. The pumps will have a canopy positioned with the least amount of exposure to the street frontage. The retail shops are set back from Lemay approximately 195' and from Conifer Street approximately 30'. It is intended that this building will contain personal service shops supportive of uses typical of neighborhood needs. A service drive at the rear of the building will control trash and delivery situations. The architectural character of both buildings will be fully brick walls with wood stained accent trim and roof band. The buildings will have a sloped hipped roof system covered with wood shake shingles. Building heights will be approximately 14' to the bottom of the. canopy with a maximum height at the peak of 22:'. The convenience store and retail stores will have a height of 10' to the bottom of the roof with a maximum height at the roof peak of 221. C. Developer and Owner ' The store will be operated by PDQ Stores. The.owner will be BB Investments Inc., Attention William Geisenhagen, 4800 Happy Canyon Road, Suite 230, Denver, Colorado 80237. NORTH LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D. Page 3 D. Development Schedule The convenience store will become the first phase of the project. All site improvements will be completed with the convenience store. The retail build- ing will not be built until sufficient pre -leases are signed to ensure usage. E. Social Compatibility A neighborhood meeting was held September 1, 1987, to which minutes were edited by Ted Shepard, City Planner. Approximately 23 neighborhood residents attended and voiced concerns and objections of varying degrees. Some felt the exist.ing Lemay Avenue street system is in need of improvement, some felt that with proper mitigation through landscaping and building design, the pro- ject would meet their approval. There were some that felt that no matter what design or mitigation we pursued, they would oppose the project. We believe the project is designed to meet the criteria of the LD� Social Compatibility Guidelines and will serve as a fine example of convenience store design and placement. We would be happy to meet or discuss all aspects of the project at your con- venience throughout the planning process. Respectfully, GEFROH HATTMAN INC. i J aes A. Gefro e C. kam Y 7 ACTIVITY - Auto- Belated and Roadside Commercia DEFINITION: Those retail and wholesale commercial activities which are generally considered and typically found along highways and arterial streets. Uses include: free standing department stores; auction. rooms; auto- mobile service stations, repair facilities, car washes; boat, car, trailer, motorcycle showrooms, sales and repair; fuel and ice sales; greenhouses and nurseries; warehouses and storage; repair, or rental of any article; exterminating shops; drive-in restaurants; adult bookstores; eating places with adult amusement or entertainment; adult photo studios; adult theatres; any uses intended to provide adult amusement or entertainment; and, other uses which are of the same general character. Each of the following applicable criteria must be CRITERIA answered "yes" and implemented within the development plan. Yes No NA 1. Does the project gain its primary vehicular access Elfrom a street other than South College Avenue? 2. Are all repair, painting and body work activities, including storage of refuse and vehicle parts, D El planned to take place within an enclosed structure? L�J 3. If the project contains any uses intended to provide adult amusement or entertainment, does it meet the following requirements: OF-] a. Is the use established, operated or maintained no less than 500 feet from a residential neighborhood, church and/or school meeting all the requirements of the compulsory education laws of the State of Colorado? b. Is the use established, operated or maintained no less than 1,000 feet from another similar use? 4. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 50% OF THE MAXIMUM ❑ POINTS AS CALCULATED ON "POINT CHART D" FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: -19- 11 1 l 1 7 1 1 1 inuec?m • a. Is the activity located other than at the intersection of two arterial streets? b. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of an existing neighborhood or community/regional shopping center, office or industrial park? c. Is the primary access to the activity from a non -arterial street? d. Is the project on at least two acres of land? e. Does the project contain two or more significant uses (for instance, retail, office, residential, hotel/motel and rec- reation)? f. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on -site parking areas and adjacent existing or future off -site parking areas which contain more than ten (10) spaces? g. Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy usage, through the application of alternative energy systems, use of existing buildings, and through committed energy conservation measures beyond that normally required by City Code? h. Is the project located with at least 1/6th of its property boundary contiguous to existing urban development? i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event occurred, which has special public value because of notable architecture, or is of cultural significance, does the project fulfill the following criteria: i. Prevent creation of influences adverse to its preserva- tion; i i. Assure that new structures and uses will be in keeping with the character of the building or place. Imitation of period styles should be avoided; and iii. Propose adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, conservation, and improve- ment in an appropriate manner while respecting the integrity of the neighborhood. -20- O)e rH LAAr fl2A peE AUTO -RELATED AND //VA R Y &. A. ROADSIDE COMMERCIAL POINT CHART D For All Critera Applicable Criteria Only Criterion Is The Criterion Applicable Yes No I II III IV Circle The Correct Score Yes WV' No: Multiplier Points Earned 1x11 Maximum Applicable Points a. Not attwo arterials X X 2 0 2 4 b, Part of planned center X X 2 0 3 Q 6 c, On non -arterial X X 2 4 D 8 d. Two acres or more X X 2 CO 3 Q 6 J e. Mixed -use X Xjg 10. 3 6 f. Joint parking 1 2 CO 3 Q g. Energy conservation X 1 2 0 4 8 h. Contiguity X X 0 5 I0 10 i, Historic preservation 1 2101 2 j, 1 2101 k, 1 2101 L, 1 2 0 • VW — Very Well Done Totals v I VI Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points VNI = VI I &0 % Vli -21- :j CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES, WASTEWATER DIVISION M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 14, 1987 TO: Ted Shepard, City Planner 1-1 FROM: David W. Meyer, Industrial Pretreatment Supervisor !% v� RE: Monitoring manhole requirements Attached is a copy of the standard Manhole the water utility requires for sampling wastewater flows. This will need to be modified by an engineer in order to be used for sampling storm drainage flows. The modifications will be necessary to accomi- date the 15 inch diameter concrete pipe that will carry the storm flows. Modifications will need -to allow for measurement of flow as well as collection of water saMples. If I can provide any more information please call me at extension 6688. attachment VVfi I 1=I1 U I ILI I ICJ, OWD r-: UraKe r1o3Q ' rori l-oins, uoioraao 0L)OZO ' k0W) Cd I-OOUI WASTEWATER DIVISION malt. WK01C VaTme "TARr VDwACTKOCI Aht W 6* 9164, m-nmoo re-cs To 6, Vl0A9 K RWALLID AT L1A41 f CIAWC THC MAVIOLL WHIDVC CRIST04 OD.,JCTOrS MC 6' &4. T%A.VVVM P11-119 FLUME DEC" ONALL " CC rtam"Ce ZTT SIT THIS NATL41 CKm MR INSTALLATIONS OVER SIX FEET DEEP P"Ill & wvut 430 La. c- 1200 001 "WENT womilm DACK CA CONCIOrTC ADJUSTMENT $.*A JOINTS TO 9C SCALED WITH Arl"OVC0 WATCAPADOF IlTum"OuS MATMAL .EMT KNCM CKT MORTAR ROTC- ALL CON<ACTC SHALL IC S000 P31 MINIMUM. U43TALLATMS UNDER SIX FEET DEEP Ink$ a CWCR 490 LIS C-1200 04 YIIIDV(0 Ev"L. MCNT hoill"I gas" cin C*MmCT9 AD,-AfMCNT SHIM ONT3 TO &C SCALED WITH App.0.19 WArce"Dop MAit it IrTeps 'too CNT'OLIO" my"Aft ROTC, ALX CLEMCAL P"Tal-LAVID-1 .77,Ty SMALL COMPLY WIT" V1AI'10"I. jLtcT "CAL CaDc. DAU I &*Me so or% 9DITION. CC"CIWWftC VdIALLATIM SHALLOW IWALLAWOR 100 WAFT, EXFLCISK)N-PRW PeANDWART LIGHT AND M"C. GALVA002110 (-%;-%* A, STANDARD VIA. . ban. ALL &MAC(,, LOOS, a SUPP(MITI — pq vmT .;A bw a 6 104 CW?MCNT BENCH SMALL• •60 Pa. S-"FIRE IWT SvTfcm a I IT-0 • FLUMC K OF 1* 1 e x 3A* ALUMINUM AC IL44-LT WITH • evtLrrs Wrol 00-41, A04LE CIWjAr IREARIA 'A STAMEMRD S' CNA. A PALMER- SOWLVI SLAM( A. TO at L013TALLLO LAYEL- A A b P. r % L OVE IQ eA OWTIM KcTem A -A I% MONITORING, MANHOLE DETAIL crT,f co, roRT CCLLL-43 WATER VTLJTIE3 I)EMRTUEKT III CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT PDQ NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DATE: September 1, 1987 LOCATION: Tavelli Elementary School ' PDQ REPRESENTATIVES: Mr. David Savich and Mr. Mark Nelson ARCHITECTURAL FIRM: Mr. Jim Gefroh'and Mr. Rick Hattman ENGINEERING FIRM: Mr. Todd Shimodo and Mr. Don Parsons CITY PLANNER: Mr. Ted Shepard QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS: 1. What is the status of the two retention ponds just west of the site? RESPONSE: Presently, these ponds are in unfinished form. If. PDQ develops, then the ponds will be given finish grading and new seeding. Also, the City Stormwater Utility will be canpleting some storm sewer work on Lemay and the ponds will then drain into the storm system. Outlet structures for the ponds would have to built to feed into the new system. These improve- ments would be required of any developer on this site. 2. The development of the site will increase the impervious surface and the stormwater runoff. Will the ponds be able to handle increased flows? RESPONSE: The ponds were sized to accept f lows from a large area based on full development conditions. 3. The proposed landscaping along both street frontages looks weak. Could you explain the assumptions behind the landscape plan? RESPONSE: The intent is to provide street trees that will soften .the effect of the building and contribute to a pleasant streetscape. The trees would be large deciduous shade trees which would mature to 30 to 50 foot crown with visibility underneath the canopy. This complies with the City's street tree policy which encourages uniform deciduous shade trees along the major streets. The intent of the landscaping is to not hide the building but to soften the impact. SERVICES, PLANNING Page 2 W, 07 4. What are the proposed hours of operation? RESPONSE: Initially, the store is anticipated to be open on an 18 hour basis. In the future, depending on demand, it could go on a 24 hour basis. 5. The placement of a convenience store at that location would be a com- mercial intrusion into a residential area. How would lighting be con- trolled to reduce this intrusion? .RESPONSE: The orientation of the building is internal to the site. This way interior store lighting would not spill into the surrounding neighbor- hood. Also, the gas pump area is located internal to the site and not out on the corner of the intersection where it would be most visible. All lighting will be designed to not spill over into the neighborhood. 6. What about street improvements to Lemay Avenue. RESPONSE: At the very minimum, the developers would have to improve the immediate street frontage adjacent to the property. This would include dedication of additional street right=of-way to achieve full arterial stan- dards. It would also include the construction of increased pavement width, sidewalk, curb, and gutter. There may be additional improvements required as a result of the review of the Traffic Impact Analysis by the City Traf- fic Engineer. Such improvements could include an acceleration lane for southbound traffic exiting the site on Lemay or other off -site improvements which are not identified at this time. 7. The existing traffic at the peak hours is very bad.. It is difficult to enter and exit Moondrift. Farm which is located just across the street. The addition of a commercial use will only make a bad situation worse. RESPONSE: It is acknowledged that there is a traffic problem under exist- ing conditions. The developer is aware that extensive discussions with the City Traffic Engineer will be held to mitigate the existing problems and the potential problems associated with the proposed PDQ. 8. What is the status of the. Fort Collins Bypass? RESPONSE: Governor Romer's proposal to fund new state highway improvements via a vehicle registration tax in an eight county area did not make it out of committee during the last state legislative session. Had this bill passed, the time would have been in the area of five years. Since the bill did not pass, it is difficult to predict when funding would be appropriated. The PDQ people are operating under an assumption that the bypass will be so far into the future, if at all, that it does not affect their development plans. 9. Where will the bypass be located? Y RESPONSE: The state is analyzing several alternative alignments. One alignment would be to use the Conifer corridor. ` Page 3 W 10. Are the developers aware that Lemay may be re-routed east around Andersonville beginning at Lincoln and then rejoin the existing alignment north of the Conifer intersection? Wouldn't such a re-routing make the proposed location less attractive? RESPONSE: PDQ is aware that this plan exists on paper but is not funded. It is difficult to predict when such an expensive project would be under- taken by the City. As with the bypass, the assumption is that the Lemay re --routing is very far into the future and is not a factor in considering the proposed location. 11. Would PDQ consider limiting the store hours to 11:00 P.M.? There are a lot of teenagers who use Conifer as dragstrip and a convenience store could become a "hang out". RESPONSE: Yes, PDQ would consider closing the store at 11:00 P.M. Also, PDQ has a strict policy of discouraging loitering. It is not good business to allow teenagers to hang out and it would not be allowed. 12. What kind of businesses would locate in the retail building? RESPONSE: It is anticipated that these businesses would be offering per- sonal services to meet neighborhood demand. 13. The covenants in Evergreen Park Third Filing do not allow commercial uses. How then is this proposal allowed to proceed? RESPONSE: PDQ obtained the permission of 75% (the required number as per the covenants) of the land owners in Evergreen Park Third Filing to amend the covenants to allow commercial development on the parcel. These amended covenants are on record and filed with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. 14. It seems very unfair that the land owners from only the Third Filing were afforded the opportunity to amend the covenants. There are many existing residents who live just across the street, in another filing, who had no opportunity to comment on the amended covenants. RESPONSE: PDQ did not set up the bylaws on how to amend the covenants. PDQ was just following the stated bylaws of the Evergreen Park Third Filing which allowed for the owners of land in the Third Filing only to comment on the amendment. 15. The median on Foxdale is not built? Who is responsible? RESPONSE: Please consult the City Traffic Engineer or the Building Inspec- tion Division. There may have been a plan amendment or a performance bond posted in lieu of construction. Page 4 OF 16. The neighborhood group would like to take this opportunity to present a petition signed by residents in the neighborhood who oppose a convenience store at the proposed location. It is the opinion of these residents that a convenience store would be an intrusion of such magnitude that no amount of design and buffering would mitigate the negative impacts. RESPONSE: The PDQ people are here to tonight to gain an understanding of the neighborhood concerns. It is a basic assumption of Land Development Guidance System that different land uses can be mitigated through design to achieve neighborhood compatibility. Under this assumption, areas for design improvement will be explored as a result of neighborhood input. It is the hope of PDQ that design and buffering will be of a superior nature so as to allay most of the neighborhood concerns. 17. Will the store sell 3.2 beer? RESPONSE: Yes, 3.2 beer will be sold as long as the market supports it. As you are aware, eighteen year olds are no longer allowed to buy 3.2 beer and only those born after a certain date are still eligible to buy 3.2 beer. When those people reach 21, it is assumed those customers will switch to full strength beer. At that time, the market may not support '3.2 beer sales. 18. Convenience stores seem to attract crime. Does PDQ do anything to reduce crime? RESPONSE: Yes. During the evening, the clerk is not allowed to carry more than $75 in the drawer. A sign is posted on the door that the clerk cannot break any bill larger than $20 and that cash in the drawer is limited. PDQ is as interested in preventing crime as anyone and will take action to deter criminal activity. 19. A convenience store will be bright, noisy, and depreciate property values. 20. A convenience store is not needed. There are several stores on Col- lege Avenue, less than a mile away, that can be reached in less than five minutes and even less if you hit green lights. RESPONSE: The proposed market area is a one mile radius. PDQ believes its market area is different from those stores on College Avenue. 2.1. Fort Collins appears to be suffering from a glut of vacant commercial space. Why "risk another commercial venture? RESPONSE: PDQ believes that its market area will support the business. 22. If the convenience store is approved, it will be very important to .. increase the landscaping to lessen the impact. Perhaps more evergreen trees should be added. Page 5 W W RESPONSE: Perhaps increased foundation plantings in shrub beds and berms would soften the impact also. 23. Who will maintain the open space, the developer or PDQ? RESPONSE: PDQ will pay annual fees into a common area maintenance fund. 24. Signage is a very sensitive issue. Would PDQ consider the tasteful signage that is characteristic of Scotch Pines? RESPONSE: Yes. PDQ realizes that signage should be kept to a minimum and that large, bright signs are not needed to attract business in a residen- tial area. PDQ will consider monument signs as opposed to pole signs to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. 25. What are the safety procedures for the underground storage tanks? Any chance of leakage into the detention ponds? RESPONSE: PDQ will use a "state of the art" system. First, all tanks are non-corrossive fiberglass as well as the lines. Second, the store clerk has a shut-off valve. Third, there is a leak detector device. Fourth, there is an electrical sensing device which monitors the levels of the tanks for inventory control -and to discourage employee theft. This latter system is reconciled daily and any leaks would be reflected immediately. 26. There is a high water table in the area. What precautions would be made to prevent the tanks from rising up to the surface? RESPONSE: Empire Labs has prepared a soils test and recommends that the underground -tanks be anchored by a system on concrete caissons. The system would be engineered to withstand the rising tendency caused by the high water table. 27. There appears to be nothing to encourage pedestrian access. People who live close should be given consideration in the form of crosswalks or something to encourage walking. RESPONSE: That is an excellent idea. The developer will consult with the City Traffic Engineer to best accomplish pedestrian access. 28. The retail building should be moved further south. This would create the opportunity for more landscaping along Conifer. RESPONSE: The architect will investigate the feasibility of shifting the building to the south. 29. Our neighborhood is in transition. It is emerging from being a new development to a quality neighborhood. Everyone is trying to establish a quality character to their property. A convenience store, if done poorly, • could do permanent damage to the area. If development were to occur, then the architecture, landscaping, site design and signage must demonstrate excellence. TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. PLANNING DEPAPTMENT: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF EVERGREEN F'AFF-.:: AND THE SURROUNDING AREA SUBMIT THIS PETITION EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMMONLY KNOWN AS PDQ CONVENIENCE STORE: _NAME AND ADDRESS �'� ioai rx��c;l sf --------=-------- ------- ------------------------- ------- ............. _ ` _Gout-------------- --' - --� -----� ---------------- -=---_-L3D-0-_ - �------- M -- --- ----------- - �- ----��----`----- r -- -- ---------------��1-- - -- �--- --- - - - -^-- L-----tj o _ ---------:-- ----------11� s �i_� ------ r -- ----=-------------/3/3 - - ----------------- -- ------------------- __ �� --�� c� h P1 •- ,2------- -- -_- -- - - ---- -------11� -------------- ----------` ----- PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D. PROJECT LOCATION The site is 1.60 acres and is located at the Southwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Conifer Street, which is a "T" intersection. The Lemay frontage is 210 feet and the Conifer frontage is 302 feet. Lake Canal runs along the South property line, and at the Southeast corner of the property there is a 4' x 17' box culvert under Lemay. The proposed access to the site is one curb cut on each street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION I Lemay Plaza P.U.D. is intended to be a neighborhood retail center consisting of a PDQ convenience store (2600 square feet with 3 gas pumps) and 10,000 square feet of undetermined use retail space. The anticipated use is service establishments on specialty retail shops. PRELIMINARY_ RESULTS A. ADJACENT STREET TRAFFIC Figures 1 through 4 show the traffic counts obtained during the hours of 7 to 8 AM and 4 to 6 PM on Thursday, August 27, 1987, broken out in 15 minutes and peak hour .intervals. The bulk of the AM traffic flows South on. Lemay and the bulk of the PM traffic flows North on. Lemay. Lemay is currently a two-lane county road, a 30-foot section. Conifer is a city collector with a 60' section. B. INTERSECTION OPERATING LEVEL Currently, the intersection is controlled by a stop sign on Conifer. The critical movement is the left turn from Conifer onto Lemay. During the A.M. peak of our traffic counts, a total of nine vehicles made this movement. During the P.M. peak, there were 27 vehicles. The critical gap for left turns from a stop sign ranges from 6.2 to 7.2 (Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook). Using the A.M. peak traffic, the average total delay is approximately 10 seconds. Similarly, the P.M. average total delay is approximately 20 seconds. This corresponds to a load factor of 0.0 during the A.M. peak and 0.1 during the P.M. peak. Therefore, the level of'service is currently A/B. i C. TRIP GENERATION The trip generation rates shown in Figure 5 were obtained from I.T.E.'s Trip Generation Report (See Figures 8 and 9). These rates were separated into two categories: those trips from passing traffic and those generated by the site. These site generated trips were then distributed according to the same percentages of existing traffic. D. SIGNAL WARRANT Based on the existing traffic counts, the intersection does not warrant a traffic signal. Adding in the site generated trips, the intersection will still not warrant a signal at this time. E. POS'SIBLE PROBLEM AREAS During the AM Peak, there appears to be no problems with .movements into or out of the site. During the PM Peak, possible .left turn conflicts exist --with the northbound Lemay traffic. F. LEFT TURN FROM CONIFER Because of the light traffic on Conifer, applicable queue. formulas show a queue of approximately 1.0. The proposed distance from the intersection to the curb cut is 135' which is enough for about 6 cars. Therefore, the distance should be adequate. G. PROPOSED LEMAY IMPROVEMENTS Lemay will eventually be an arterial. The box culvert crossing of Lake Canal would have to be widened. If the City desires improvements to Lemay at the time'of the development. of this site, we propose a 70-foot section with an 8:1 transition assuming there is no right-of-way problems. If the City desires that this site not develop their portion of Lemay at this time and contribute at a later date, we feel the existing road sections will accommodate the flow of traffic. CONCLUSIONS Based on this preliminary study, we feel. the proposed development will not h e a detrimental impact upon present traffic conditions. If uture conditions warrant a traffic signal, we feel the curb is are an adequate distance from the intersection based on the number of vehicl ggpima.44ng turning movements. F p s s Prepared by: Todd A. Colorado License #18792 PARSONS & cLr"T �� � �,• � Joe No. 4 ASSOCIATES PROJECT T7-0C�SFriG 'GVA --f CALCULATIONS FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ft., Collins, Colorado 90524 MADE BY� DATE CHECKED BV DATE SHEET - - - - OF PARSONS & L�-'L��� 8'1.1y PrJ4 CUtJT JOB NO. RIASSOCIATES PROJECT TFYIG ZV�nPA�/( CALCULATIONS FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ft. Collins, Colorado SOS24 MADE BY -DATE -CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF � , � " , J a r e 'Ys a r � ii, � �: '>• 'i ii 4 - Y i C h 'a5 � f 1 .�. � Y,� � i F S 1 �.t .+� `��.� 5 � 5 ! � E 5 �� � b � �: W�-�—�-rt—�-� '� ,, r " � a' d `1©Ci � �r 1 Y.h )� i, .. '. w 1 r ., ... . .. _ ', - is „_, A N O T E S R E G AfR D I N G THE 7 5 F 0 0 T U S B R E A S E M E N T .66 There shall be it; not-obstrue ted'access, a minimum of 21.00 feet wide centered on the main feeder line in fhe.0"S.B.R. Easement 2, No shrubs, trees, etc., -shall be planted in the U.S.B.R. easement if their growth will exceed the heights of common field J evops. 3, permanent buildings can be located within the U.S.B.R. easement. 4. Access to lots abutting the U.S.B.R. easement shall not cross the easement or any part thereof, 5. Building permits issued for individual lots which include the Bureau eof Reclamation easement as sha&, hereon shall exclude said area within said easement as a portion of that let. Said easement areas are shown in the table ielow.'' BLOCK LOT AREA BLOCK LOT AREA BLOCK LOT AREA 2 25 20154 7 1 5250 7 11 5250 4 40 2051 2 5250 12 9531 41 3762 r 3 5250 13 11021 , 42 4 5250 19 3348 .2813 43 2749 5 5250 20 16417 44 3219 6 5250 21 7986 45 2842 j 7 5250 23 7862 46 10325 8 5250 47 5692 9 5250 148 1378 10 5250 6. \% l All construction on the U.S'.B.R. easement must receive the prior approval of .the Bureau of Reclamation: CITY OF FORT COLLINS OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM T0: The Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Ted Shepard, City Planner DATE: November 2, 1987 RE: North Lemay Plaza - Updated Information Since the writing of the Staff Memo for the North Lemay Plaza, new informa- tion has become available regarding the monitoring manhole and the water tap for the street trees. THE MONITORING MANHOLE - CONDITION NUMBER 7 In a meeting with representatives from the Planning Department, the Storm - water Utility, the City's Industrial Pretreatment Department and the Department of Natural Resources, it was decided that the best method of monitoring stonnwater runoff would be to install an standard five foot diameter manhole. This manhole would allow storm flows to be captured for testing. It is not necessary to install any _internal testing equipment. In addition, it was felt that conducting a water quality test of the pond would be necessary to establish baseline data by which future tests could be judged. The monitoring manhole would then allow future tests to be com- pared with the baseline and determine water quality over time. Staff, therefore, would add the condition that the developer conduct a water quality analysis on the existing retention pond. This test would analyze four areas: 1. PH content CHAOMI 2. Heavy metals (Group One) L�Ao� CHo"►IuM) h 3. Organics (benzene, toluene, xylene) 4. Oil and grease SERVICES, PLANNING This test must occur prior to construction. It is anticipated that this requirement will be enforced through the traditional development agreement at the time of final PUD approval. CONDITION NUMBER 3 Since the writing of the Staff Memo, the developer has indicated that a temporary water tap to establish the off -site landscaping may not be necessary. As a result, the developer would like to preserve the option of watering from an on -site tap. Staff's only concern is that the trees be sufficiently watered. Staff, therefore would amend Condition #3 to read as follows: "The final utility plans shall indicate a water line designed to irrigate the off -site street trees along Conifer Street." boa ,,Jc- A CIL, C�e�- //In 74�a a r, ./ `'./i"i•'.yi wi..�•. �,_��.1'.+J'-.1'� (i��ct. �'�Y�.°�WL.cyl, ..i`.�'a.G' •�"ii,.J'�".f-� ✓.•v:`�"�' �.yH ✓1..4.G' ���� yY-n.11�,.y.�.,a�,✓L %GJ�.�r 7 /%�'y-.G�ii., _ � �.��. G?G'f /fir-s.Gc�G — ' G IL i S .. d1Y 1iO•Le L, /11 ` D ►/ � F ,/� i /'�:?.+( r fi�� ` r� w *%. r r Au '75- TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT: THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF EVERGREEN PARK AND THE SURROUNDING AREA SUBMIT THIS PETITION EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMMONLY KNOWN AS PDO CONVENIENCE STORE: NAME AND ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------- /00/rail Sf ----------- --- --------------------------------- -I- ?v ________ `.�6? -Co4mza-e ---------------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ------- 13- t i�� `�---------------------------- - --------------- _c�/__--- -- - ------------ -------------- _Z`-________ _ /3 -------------- ------------- cz-- h c _Er ___j .. --- ----- � 2& ------------- 15` 3 p 6L.,