HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTH LEMAY PLAZA PUD - FINAL - 57-87A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 21
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING OF March 28 1988
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: North Lemay Plaza PUD - Final #57-87A
APPLICANT: Gefroh-Hattman, Inc. OWNER: B&B Investments, Inc.
135 W. Swallow Rd. 4800 Happy Canyon Rd., Suite 23
Fort Collins, CO 80525 Denver, CO
PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Final PUD for a convenience
store with gasoline sales and a retail building. The convenience store mea-
sures 2.,604 square feet and the retail building measures 10,,672 square
feet. The site contains 1.78 acres, and is located at the southwest corner
of Conifer Street and North Lemay Avenue. The zoning is R-L-M, Low Density
Multi -Family.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The preliminary PUD was approved in November of 1987
with nine conditions. These conditions have been addressed and satisfied.
The preliminary approval was appealed and heard by City Council on January
5, 1988. The preliminary approval was upheld with the added condition that
the convenience store hours of operation be restricted. The final PUD is in
substantial conformance with the preliminary.
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P,O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221-6750
SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
North Lemay Plaza PUD - Final - #57-87A
March 28, 1988 P&Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RLP; Single family residential
S: RLP; Single family residential
E: FA-1 (County); Single family residential
W: RLM; Vacant (detention pond)
The site consists of Lots 18 and 19 of Evergreen Park Third Filing Subdivi-
sion, approved in 1977.
2. Conditions of Approval:
A. That the applicant submit to the Plans Examiner of the Building Inspec-
tion Division evidence that the buildings exceed the City's adopted
Model Energy Code.
Response:
The Building Inspection Division has indicated that the necessary docu-
mentation has been received. The building envelope design exceeds the
Model Energy Code by approximately 40% for the convenience store and
39% for the retail building. This building envelope design allows the
project to earn the energy conservation points on the Auto Related and
Roadside Commercial point chart.
B. That a landscape phasing plan indicate that the off -site landscape
improvements be tied to the construction of the convenience store. In
addition, larger than minimum caliper trees should be provided.
Response:
On both the final site plan and landscape plan, a phase line separates
the two distinct phases of the project. The first phase consists of the
convenience store, gas pumps, canopy, street trees along Conifer and
Lemay, and landscaping along the west and south property lines. The
first phase includes off -site landscaping. The second phase will
include the retail shops and its related parking and circulation areas.
In addition to being depicted graphically on both the site plan and
landscape plan, the phasing is also described in writing on both plans.
North Lemay Plaza PUD - Final - #57-87A
March 28, 1988 P&Z Meeting
Page 3
The second part of the condition regarding larger than minimum caliper
street trees has been addressed. There are 12 oversized trees on Con-
ifer Street. Five of these trees are 2-1/2 inch caliper deciduous trees
and seven are 8-10 feet in height coniferous trees. These sizes exceed
the minimum of 2 inch caliper for deciduous and 6 feet in height for
coniferous trees.
C. That the final utility plans shall indicate a water line designed to
.irrigate the off -site street trees along Conifer Street.
Response:
Note No. 13 on the final landscape plan indicates that:
"Landscaped areas within the public right-of-way and the City owned
detention area will be irrigated by spray -type heads providing 150%
coverage of the ground area."
D. That the final site plan demonstrate reduced signage that would be more
in character with the existing residential character of the area.
Response:
The final plans indicate that there will be no signage on the conve-
nience store and gas canopy on the Lemay frontage. The only allowable
sign on Lemay will be one free-standing sign that would measure six
feet in overall height, including base, and 8 feet in length. On Con-
ifer, the convenience store will be allowed one wall sign, the retail
building will be allowed one wall sign, and there shall only be one
ground sign measuring 32 square feet per side maximum. Both the ground
sign on Conifer and the free-standing sign on Lemay must comply with
the required setbacks as specified in the sign code. Total site signage
is substantially less than that normally allowed under the sign code.
Sign area reduction, along with the prohibition of pole signs, success-
fully meet the intent of the condition.
E. That a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis be submitted outlining the
operation of the Lemay-Conifer intersection. Also, any traffic related
improvements required to mitigate the impacts of the project must be
shown on the utility plan.
Response:
The proposed street improvement should be adequate to off -set the
impacts of this proposal. These improvements include re -striping the
intersection of Lemay and Conifer and constructing a lane widening for
vehicles exiting onto southbound Lemay. Lemay Avenue will be improved
along the frontage of the project to arterial standards.
North Lemay Plaza PUD - Final - #57-87A
March 28, 1988 P&Z Meeting
Page 4
F. That the landscaping of the area beyond the west property line be tied
to a specific phase.
Response:
The final landscape plan shows this area by the detention pond to be
included in phase one.
G. That the developer conduct a water quality analysis on the existing
pond. The test would analyze four areas:
1. P.H. content
2. Heavy metals (Group One)
3. Organics (benzene, toluene, xylene)
4. Oil and grease
Response•
This test is required as part of the Development Agreement and must be
completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The Department
of Natural Resources will be responsible for analyzing the test
results.
H. That the applicant submit to the Poudre Valley Fire Authority the plans
for the installation of the underground gasoline storage tanks.
Response:
The applicant submitted installation plans that were reviewed by the
Assistant Fire Marshal of the Poudre Fire Authority. The tanks are to
be anchored positively to spread footings by a concrete saddle and con-
crete cradle arrangement. The plans also include tank level monitoring,
leak detection indicators, and shut off valves at the tank and the
operator's console. It is the conclusion of the Assistant Fire Marshal
that the installation plans address and satisfy all major concerns and
there are no problems with underground tanks at this location. The
documentation from the Assistant Fire Marshal is attached.
I. That the PUD document contain a restriction that would prohibit the
installation of a drive -through lane for the dispensing of fast food
through a service window.
Response:
Note No. 16 on the final site plan states:
"The service drive at the west edge is to be. limited to services only.
No fast food pick up windows will be allowed."
North Lemay Plaza PUD ---Final - #57-87A
March 28, 1988 P&Z Meeting
Page 5
Staff has concluded that the nine conditions of the preliminary approval
have been satisfied.
3. Council AoDeal
On January 5, 1988, the City Council heard an appeal of the preliminary
approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. After public debate and
Council deliberation, the City Council upheld the preliminary approval with
the added condition that the hours of operation of the convenience store be
limited between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
The final site plan complies with this condition with Note No. 18, which
states:
"Convenience store hours of operation will be limited to the hours
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m."
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the nine conditions of preliminary approval have been
satisfied, and the final plan is in substantial conformance with the preli-
minary. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the North Lemay Plaza PUD
Final.
F�A I �d -M. o
.'� o o
lion A
i
I.
9]euueld / 940GI140JV
'Ouf 'SGIO OSSV 40-40L NV® i
t�,t�.roA•
b6t i gryt .
3s II
1
€
�fl8€
[371gg[
fl�rY
�W ..
E fi
Uj
55
F ca jiF=-W -5Y •g ;,
N
-.56
..j�.."•PF 9la yF
j��
3 7'
i.`
31 V
Ga
3
'aura onusira '
p
H1
yl c
Sieuueld / 810811434
-Jul `semoossd yojpo M
B
11
I
w
Y
B
4
cm
iIf:a
W
GEFROH HATTIVIAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
January 1 1 , 1988 (303) 223-7335
Mr. Felix Lee
City of Fort Collins
Director of Building Department
Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: NORTH LEMAY P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Lee:
The information submitted with this letter is being forwarded to your office
for review through the Planning Department.
This information is provided as documentation to support this project request
of energy related points within the Planning process.
The project consists of two buildings -- one, a 2604 sq. ft. convenience store;
the other, a 10,672 sq. ft. retail building. The construction techniques for
both buildings will be similar. Each will be single story in nature, 2"x6''
framing wall with brick veneer slab on grade floors and wood truss pitches roof
framing.
There are two separate points charts submitted for this project: A points chart
for road side and auto related commercial and a points chart "E" business
service uses. On both charts we are requesting 4 points out of a possible 8
points or 50% of the total energy points allowable for such a complex.
The following is a review of Chapter 6 of the model energy code for the City and
State. It is our contention that by designing a more thermally efficient build-
ing envelope that this can reduce the non-renewable fossil type fuel consumption
of this project to warrant credit for these points. The following summary of the
two thermal envelopes demonstrates an average of 40% savings of energy through a
heating season which we think is a substantial savings over and above the base
line requirements set by City standards; therefore, warranting the points being
granted.
The following is our findings.
Sincerejyou
....i��.,.
•
Pre dent
°�•�.
' ' r..�Vice
J.
kam
enc.
�. �f •., •. -� .
`
°�'�.,`'�i
cc: Ted Shepard
)�•,°s•��`��;
�:!�
4
MODEL ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
CONVENIENCE STORE
NORTH LEMAY P.U.D.
BUILDING ENVELOPE
Building Footprint 2604 Sq. Ft.
Building Dimensions 62X42
Floor to Ceiling Height of
Heated Space 10 Ft.
Temperature Differential 720 F.
Heating Season 6600 Degree Days
CODE COMPLIANT - Base Data For This Building
Table Values of Surface Aggregate
Walls U = 0.26
Roof/Ceiling U° = 0.07
Slab R° = 5.4
BASE CRITERIA U Wall X Area Wall + U Roof X Area Roof
Building Uo = o 0
SURFACE AREA
0.26 X 2080 + 0.07 X 2604
4684
0.15
SPECIFIC _BUILDING - Envelope Value
Wall Face Brick R = .75
Insulated Sheathing R = 2.50,
Air Space R = 1.01
Batt Insulation R = 19.00
Wood Studs R = 6.875
Gypsum Board R = 0.45
Assume 14% of Wall is
Solid Wood Framing R = 11.58
Assume 86% of Wall is
Filled With Insulation - R = 23.71
Glass Store Front Aluminum Frame and 1" Insulation. Glass U = .49
Wall Surfaces 540 Sq. Ft. Glass tore Front
216 Sq. Ft. Solid Wall
1324 Sq. Ft. Void Wall
Wall Uo = UG X Glass Area + USW X Solid Wall Area + UVW X Void Wall Area
Surface Area
0,_49 X 540 + 0.086 X 216 + 0.042 X 1324
2080
338.77
20 0
.16
M
MODEL ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
NORTH LEMAY P.U.D.
Page 2
Roof/Ceiling Suspended Ceiling R = 1.78
MR Space R = .94
Truss R = 6.875
Insulation R = 40.00
Assume 14% of Roof is Framing R = 9.5.9
Assume 86% of Roof Space is Void R = 42.72
Uo Roof = UR Area Truss + UR X Area of Insulation
Roof Area
0.104 X 364._ + 0.023 X 2240
�0
+ .034
Overall Envelope U Values = Uw X Aw + UR + A
SURFACE AREA
_ .16 X 208o + .034 X 2604
4684
Uo = 0.09
Base Data Uo = 0.15
ENERGY_CONSUMPTJON- At design differential
Base Data AS X Uo X At = BTUH
4684 X 0.15 X 72 = 51936 BTUH
Building as Designed AS X Uo X At = BTUH
4684 X 0.09 X 72 = 30352 BTUH
ENERGY CONSUMPTION - Seasonal
Base Data AS X Uo X DD = MBTU/Season
4684 X 0.15 X 6600 = 4,760 MBTU/Season =
Building as designed AS X Uo X DD = MBTU/Season
4684 X 0.09 X 6600 = 2782 MBTU/Season =
2782 MBTU = 58i
7�o MBTu
Percent of Fuel Savings 42% Per Season
4
MODEL_ ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
RETAIL STORES
NORTH LEMAY P.U.D.
BUILDING ENVELOPE
Building Footprint
Building Dimensions
Floor to Ceiling Height of
Heated Space
Temperature Differential
Heating Season
10,672 Sq. Ft.
70 X 160
10 Ft.
720 F.
6600 Degree Days
CODE COMPLIANT - Base Data for this Building
Table Values of Surface Aggregate
Walls U = 0.26
Roof/Ceiling U° = 0.07
Slab R° = 5.4
BASE_ CRITERIA
U° = Uo Wall X Area Wall + Uo Roof X Area Roof
SURFACE AREA
0.26 X 4600 + 0.07 X 10,672
15,272
Uo = 0.127
SPECIFIC BUILDING - Envelope Value
Wall - Face Brick
R =
.75
Insulating Sheathing
R =
2.50
Air Space
R =
1.01
Batt.lnsulation
R =
19.00
Wood Studs
R =
6.875
Gypsum Board
R =
0.45
Assume 14% of Wall is Solid
Wood Framing R = 11.58
Assume 86% of Wall is Stud Space R = 23.71
Glass Store Front Aluminum Frame and l" Insulating Glass UG .49
Wall Surfaces 1400 Sq. Ft. Glass
448 Sq. Ft. Framing
2752 Sq. Ft. Stud Space
UW = Uc X A Glass + OF X A Framing + US X A Space
00 Sq. Ft.
0.49 X 1400 + 0.089 X 448 + 0.043 X 2752
OO Sq. Ft.
0.034
M
•
r1
U
MODEL ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE
RETAIL STORES
NORTH LEMAY P.U.D.
Page 2
Roof/Ceiling.- Suspended Ceiling
Air Space
Truss
Truss Space Insulation
Assume 14% of Wall is Solid Wood
Frame
Assume 86% of Insulated Space
R = 1.78
R = .94
R = 6.875
R = 40.00
R = 9.59
R = 42.72
Uo Roof = UR X A Truss + UR X A Insulation
Roof Area
0.104 X 1494 + 0.023 x 9178
10, 672 Sq. Ft.
= 0.034
Overall Envelope U Value = UW X AW + UR + AR
Surface Area
0.18 X 4600 + 0.034 X_10,-672
1-5127 Sq. Ft. - -
Uo = 0.078
Base Data Uo = 0.127
ENERGY CONSUMPTION - At Design Differential
Base Data - A X U X At = BTUH
15�,2740X 0.127 X 72 = 139,665 BTUH
Building As Designed - A X U X At BTUH
15,2740x 0.078 X 72 = 85,778 BTUH
ENERGY CONSUMPTION - Seasonal
Base.Data - A X U X DD = MBTU/Season
1�,274oX 0.127 X 6600 = 12,802 MBTU/Season =
Building As Designed - A X U X DD = MBTU/Season
]5,2740X 0.078 X 6600 = 7863 MBTU/Season =
7,863 _ 61%
Percent of Fuel Savings 39%
CONCLUSIONS: The code calls for slab on grade to have a perimeter insulation
R = 5.4. Using a dow SM board ]I" thick, the insulation value is R = 7.5. The
perimeter edge loss is 50% higher than code standard for purposes of these cal-
culations of energy savings. This differential in values was negated in order to
establish values for the envelope subject to air to air heat loss.
The decrease in fuel consumption due to the increase in thermal value for the
exposed envelope shows a measured reduction in fossil fuel required for these
structures over City standards. Values approaching 40% were achieved by both
buildings which we feel warrant the allowance of 4 points for energy conservation
for each Point Chart.
Phone 303-221-6570
505 PECERSON
l.�I�OY I FORT COLLINS, COLO.80524
January 21, 1988
Mr. Ted Shepard, Project Planner
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, CO. 80522
RE: Proposed Underground Fuel Tank
Installation at Lemay & Conifer
Dear Ted:
This letter is in response to your request for a preliminary plan review
of the proposed underground fuel tank installation at Lemay and Conifer.
While the plans currently submitted to us are inadequate for our permit
process, they do address and satisfy our major concerns for such a
project. We see no problem with approving the proper 'installation
of underground tanks at this location.
Sincerely,
David F. Sawyer
Assistant Fire Marshal
DFS/sw
JAN 2 51988
�i
PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY
GEFROH HATTMAN INC.
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
135 West Swallow Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
January 13, 1988 (303) 223-7335
Mr. Dave Sawyer .
POUDRE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT
505 Peterson Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
RE: UNDERGROUND STORAGE_- TANK INSTALLATION
NORTH LEMAY PLAZA
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Dear Mr. Sawyer:
The North Lemay Plaza is a P.U.D. that has been submitted to the City for final
review.
A part of this P.U.D. is.a convenience center which will have fuel filling
center. The City has requested that you review the outlined specifications
for tank installation for this property. The main concern appears to be with
potential groundwater contamination from tank leakage.
As you are aware, State and Federal regulations govern the installation of
these types of installations.
It is the Intent of the Developer and the Tenant/Operator to follow all
applicable regulations for fuel storage tank installations. It will be
the Tenant, P.D.Q.'s responsibility for the installation of these facil-
ities and for on -going maintenance.
Currently a soils' investigation has been performed by Empire Labs of
Fort Collins for the site outlining soil and groundwater conditions that
exist on site. These recommendations will be followed in preparing site
and installing the tanks.
I am including along with the outline specifications a copy of the soils' re-
port and a site plan showing.the tank locations. As you will note, the tanks
are placed on a virtually level portion of the site more than 65 feet from the
irrigation. canal to the South of the site which is noted as potentially unstable
ground in the Soils' 'report.
If you kaVe any questions; please give me a call.
S 166 �F , Y®!j §
F edric J attman
Vice President
kam
3 enc.
NORTH LEMAY PLAZA
OUTLINE SPECIFICATION
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
GENERAL: Provide installation of fiberglass petroleum storage tank
to all current applicable standards.
STANDARD: State of Colorado for underground storage of hazardous materials.
Uniform Fire Code.
OSHA.
CONCRETE FILL MATERIAL: 3000 PSI, after 28 days, 4 sack mix of wash-
ed fine grained granular or crushed aggregate.
TANK: Fiberglass reinforced resin, Class 200.
EXPERIENCE: Installer with minimum of 5 years experience in installing
petroleum underground tanks.
INSTALLATION: Provide temporary dewatering of site throughout installa-
tion of tanks adequate to maintain excavation dry. Tank to be anchored
positively to stread footing by concrete saddle and concrete cradle ar-
rangement at point designed by tank manufacturer.
Backfill excavation with granular fill.
Compact adjacent to tank compact to 80% ASTM 4253-83. Compact 24" from
surface cover to 95% standard proctor density. Top 6" of cover to be
continuously poured concrete slab.
Food Stores of Colorado, Inc.
Suite 210
12500 E. I1iff
Aurora, CO 80014
(303) 752-4683
January 13, 1988
Mr. Rick Hattman.
Gefroh & Hattman, Inc.
135 W. Swallow Rd.
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
RE: PDQ Gasoline Systems
Dear Rick•
Enclosed, please find materials on PDQ's standard
gasoline storage and dispensing system. Please contact
me with questions or further requests.
Sincerely
r
Mark-B. Nelson
Real Estate Representative
PDQ Food Stores of .Colorado, Inc.
PDQ uses the latest technology in gasoline storage and
delivery systems. Underground tanks and all piping to the
dispensers are made from 100% corrosion free high grade
fiberglass approved by Underwriters Laboratory. All tanks are
enveloped with a minimum one foot layer of 3/8" pea gravel to
provide a cushion of protection. We go beyond the industry
standards and install flexible pipe joints where the fiberglass
pines are connected to the tanks and dispenser to protect against
e::zage due to excessive soil expansion and contraction. Such a
::_.3tem can remain operative in the ground for an indefinite
period of time.
The local Fire Department oversees the installation of such
facilities with inspections before and after the tanks are placed
in the ground, in addition to the initial approval given by the
State Oil and Gas Inspection Department upon plan review.
A geotechnical engineering study is done for each site to
identify soil types, properties and moisture presence. Should
groundwater be excessive, the tanks are anchored either from the
bottom with cables fastened to concrete blocks or a concrete slab
or from above with a thickened coverslab to prevent movement due
to the tanks buoyancy.
PDQ incorporates six different safety measures to safeguard
against loss of product.
1. There is an emergency shut off switch located at the
gasoline console by the cash register which allows the
clerk to shut down the entire pumping system
instantaneously. .
2. All dispensers are equipped with a special shut off
valve located just below the concrete pump island,
which closes automatically should the dispenser be run
- into or completely torn off the island.
3. Each gasoline pump is equipped with a leak detector.
This devise senses the flow rate in the lines between
the tanks and dispensers. Should the pressure increase
at any time, at a rate faster than the dispensers are
known to operate, the valve shuts off the flow of gas
at the pump.
4. PDQ equips each tank with a computerized tank level
sensor. This system continuously monitors gasoline
volume, temperature, and reports any water presence
within the tanks, with a detailed printout. The store
manager daily correlates actual sales with the
computerized printouts to monitor gasoline inventory.
Small losses of product can be spotted quickly. In
addition, the system is programmed to complete a tank
tightness test every night to insure that no gasoline.
is leaking.
d
a
5. Weekly, our Managers are required to manually measure
the amount of product in each fuel storage tank and
send a weekly report to our' corporate office for
comparison with daily logs showing the amount of fuel
sold at the cash registers.
6. During construction, PDQ installs several observation
wells in the tank hole. The wells consist of a four
inch perforated pipe extending to the bottom of the
tank hole, a minimum of 1.2 feet. Should product loss
occur, any lost fuel will quickly flow through the
porous pea gravel to the slightly depressed location of
the observation well where it can be discovered,
measured and pumped from the tank hole if necessary.
PDQ shares the communities concerns for the operation of a safe
gasoline facility. We have incorporated many safety devices
which are considered the very best in the industry. We believe
that an understanding of the safety precautions and devices used
by PDQ will alleviate any safety concerns which may exist.
ADDENDUM
REVISED PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC REPORT
LEMAY PLAZA P.U.D.
This addendum is a more detailed analysis of the Conifer and
Lemay intersection: performing a capacity and level of service
analysis assuming the intersection has been signalized (for 20-
year future traffic), and examining the curb cut on Conifer to see
if the distance from Lemay is adequate to minimize conflict with
those attempting to turn into .the site. The Highway Capacity
Manual was used to perform the analysis.
ASSUMPTIONS
The twenty-year analysis -is based on a percentage increase in
the A.D.T. (from the City of Fort Collins Transportation
Division). These figures are:
Lemay - 11,000 ADT an increase of 33%
Conifer - 6,000 ADT an increase of 300%
These percentages were applied to the peak hour traffic
volumes in order to perform the analysis.
The traffic signal cycle time, for the purpose of this
preliminary analysis, is assumed to be 15 seconds. Also the
signal is assumed to be 3-phase and pre -timed. The phase times
are further estimated to be:
1. Conifer, left and right = 20 seconds
2. Lemay, northbound left and through =,.10 seconds
3. Lemay, north and southbound through = 45 seconds
These phase timings were calculated using the method found in
Appendix II.
CONCLUSIONS:
Using these assumptions, the level -of -service for the
intersection is B. The intersection operates at a level under
capacity.
Based on Figure I.9-1, the left -turn bay storage in feet for
the 20-year future volume on Conifer is 90 feet. The distance of
the curb cut to Lemay (center line from drive to west edge of
Lemay) is 130 feet.
w
i
•'
I
-c4
e
,
7-7 I
1
-r
f
,
I
'
L
. 1
I 1
,
1 i
i 1
•i t• i i e�:40
i I I
' '
r—
y T
•---� C-7 D€jj
T
1
i
I
.2 .:.�t•�7_..�..--may.-+-_:..-.-._:_. _
.. .... _. ..
_. ..- ..l
i
,
.
�
I
•
� I
i