Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSILVERBERG PUD PRELIMINARY - 12 92A - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSMike Ludwig Project Planner City of Ft. Collins 281 N. College Ft. Collins, CO 80524 RE: COMMENTS FOR SILVERBERG P.U.D. Dear Mike; The following are the response to the comments that you made regarding the project and how the design team resolved or mitigated these concerns. 1. Light and Power. We acknowledge that the service will be from the frontage road and that locations of the transformers is critical for service. 2. Water Conservation. A table is provided with the breakdown of the types and areas of landscaping. 3. Public Service Company. Easements are in agreement. We understand the landscaping verses utility off -set. 4. Traffic Operations. Matt and Eric have discussed the traffic number counts and have documented these numbers separately. Phasing and access is in alignment. Continuous deceleration and acceleration lane is provided with the new alignment. Access point has been aligned with the separation asked for by the City and C-DOT. Standard raised cross walks are used through the Site. Matt has met to outline the traffic concerns for off site improvements. 5. Poudre Fire Authority. Fire Hydrant number and location is in agreement. Hazardous Material Impact Analysis has been revised. 6. Transportation Planner. Engineering directs us that this portion of Prospect is a Collector. We are providing 50 foot of width of paving from the center line to provide for median in the future, travel lane for through street, accel and decel continuous lane, and continuous bicycle lane. 7. ELCO Water District. We have revised the documents as per Mr. Jones' comments. 0 4P From: Eric Bracke To: FC1.CPES.MLUDWIG Date: 1/16/97 9:36am Subject: Silverberg PUD -Traffic Study Mike, I had asked Matt Dellich to recount the intersections along Prospect prior to accepting the Traffic Impact Study. The original counts were obtained in early 1995 and inflated to represent 1996 traffic. After review the 1997 counts, some of the estimates were high, some low, and some very close. The most critical movements were very close to actual. For analysis purposes the Traffic Study is valid and should be acceptable without a re -analysis of the intersections. Let me know if you have any questions. -Eric CC: FCI.ENG_NET.KASHBECK, fjones, KREAVIS 4 8. Boxelder Sanitation District. We have revised the Utility Plan as directed by Mr. Jones. The two comments made we take no exception. 9. Zoning. Lot and building size, footprint, and envelopes have been added. Landscaping phasing has been added to the Plan. Plant list is a part of the Final. Building envelopes are shown and dimensioned. 10. Building Inspection We understand the need for accessible rooms and facilities. Fire sprinklers are shown for all buildings that are larger than 5,000 s.f. We note the need for accessibility to the swimming pool. We also note that the hazardous materials used for pool equipment will conform to the Fire Code and types and quantities on site will be noted on each Building Permit. The Site Plan will meet the gradient requirements of the ADA and ANSI Standards. Health Department requirements will be submitted and met by all food service establishments. Each building will be Designed and constructed to the current City of Ft. Collins Energy Code for the specific use. 11. Engineering. Separate comments submitted by the Engineer. 12. Storm Drainage. Separate comments are submitted to the department. 13. Natural Resources. There are no trees on the Site. 14. Current Planning. a. vicinity Map Labeled. b. vicinity Map Scaled and North shown. C. Note #1 is changed to reflect the specific heights of the buildings. d. Note #2, Lighting photometric is provided. e. Note #4, Elevations for trash areas shown. f. Note #10 has been revised to address maintenance. g. Note #14 has been revised and the fence is shown on the plan and elevations shown. h. Note #16 has been added to address mechanical units and screening of such. i. Phasing and lot number is coordinated on the schedule for phasing. j . Land Use Schedule has been expanded to note Lots and Use. k. Trash for this Lot have been revised. 1. Prospect Rd. is noted. M. Trash sharing has been eliminated. n. Fast Food use notes Drive-thru. o. Sidewalk is changed to be 8 ft. wide. P. Lot lines for each lot are shown. q. Crosswalks are added as Patterned Concrete. Additional sidewalk access to and through the Site is intensified. r. Sheets are numbered as a set. S. Landscaping is added to screen trash areas and transformers. t. Landscaping, trees, have been added to the front of each Motel. U. Landscaping has been added to screen the drive -up lane. V. Landscaping has been added to screen parking from Prospect. W. Parking has been relocated at this northeast end of the Site. X. Note #32 has been revised to note City Medium pruning. y. Roofing is to be High -profile and is noted such. Z. Vent covers are added to the mechanical units. The tower has been removed. The Elevations have been modified to provide more detail on all sides and roof breaks. aa. Car wash Building is labeled. The Canopy design has been modified. bb. Lattice has been add to the building. The masonry has been banded, and the stucco has more detail added on all sides. cc. Additional pedestrian access has been added to the site to help meet Criteria 2.6. In addition the location of the walkways have been located to made the access to buildings direct without crossing parking lots. Walkways crossing drives is limited to minimize the impact of the interface. Pedestrian crossings of raised concrete that is patterned in all instances is also added to demonstrate the intended dominance of the pedestrian walkways within the project. The walkways being direct and well defined are provided to encourage the visitors to the site to walk to the other services on the site rather than walk. The Walkways from the Motels to the restaurants and the convenience store are well defined, bold when crossing the driveways and obvious so site users will want to walk to the different site uses. Criteria 2.7 is met in the way we have reconfigured the site and the massing of the buildings on the site. We have relocated the motel to be on the west and south ends of the property. This provides the three story building far away from the only single family home in the area which is 350 to 400 feet east of our most easterly property. The restaurants being single story are closer to Prospect and provide a visual stepping of the property and help soften the visual impact of the property from the adjacent streets. The closest home is a two story building with a steep hip style roof. Our buildings all are residential scale, residential material pallid and shape with slopped and hipped roof forms. With the addition of the screening and additional form modulation of the buildings we are compatible and have mitigated the impacts of our development to the surrounding area. Criteria 2.16 and 2.17 on further examination are probably not applicable to this project. dd. Chart D is not applicable. ee. For further explanation see attached dialogue for Points Chart. ff. See attached for further discussion of Points Chart. gg. At preliminary stage the building design is not far enough all to have the specific information needed for an Engineer to accurately define the Building with respect to the Model Energy Code. hh. See attached discussion on the Points Chart. Thank you for your concerns and Your comments have caused us to this project and have revised comments. We think the project i better project. Sincerely; Fredric J Hattman comments regarding this project. revisit many of the elements of the design in response to your s improved and will give us all a � N S =LVT=: "r3ERG P �7' D TYPE OF PROJECT - The project is a Auto related center of business appealing to the traveler. PROJECT LOCATION - The project is located at the southeajt corner of Prospect Road and I - 25. ')ESCRI PTION H S 0, S J - The project will consist of seven separate businesses. Two of the.buildings are Motels and three of the businesses are restaurants. These uses are not foreseen as having .or selling hazardous types of materials on site with the exception of small quantities of cleaning materials used by trained staff for cleaning of t e a,ciiity. One of the users on the site will consist of three building. This will be the convenience center. This will consist of a Car Wash, Food Store, and Auto Fuel Sales. Their are two sources of potential Hazardous Materials found on the site outside of cleaning materials as noted above. The fuel sales portion of the project will have hazardo_usmaterials on site that they will sell in cor,.-a _ner of quart size and smaller for indivaal-sales and use on site by consumers. These - pr,;ducts will typically have a small potential of spills larger than one container at any one time. The Business Operation will handle these type spills by iso'T�ing the materials and using absorptive cloths to clean up spills of this minor magnitude. The fuel sales operation will follow all State, Local, and Federal Laws in the construction of the facility, in the installation of tanks for fuel storage, and the sales of such fuels to individuals. The fuel retailer will make all appropriate document filings and permit applications with the City, State, and Poudre Fire Authority at the Building Permit Stage. The Retailer will allow and cooperate with the. Authority during the installation of the storage tanks and associated controls for the N operation-.. The site will provide for the storage of approximately 25,500 gallons in four storage tanks. The site construction will provide for site damming in the case of any spillage of fuel to keep the hazardous material contained on site and to keep these materials out of the storm drainage system. The site will have a single point of run-off release that will be blocked in the case of an accidental spill. The Retailer will follow their corporate procedure for reacting and reporting fuel spills.,Trucks used to fill tanks on site will be equipped with automatic fuel shut-off features. The retailer will file its hazardous material spill procedures to the Fire Authority at the to of Building permit application. We will provide any additional information as requested by the Authority at the time the Project is processed to a Final. 1 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: December 24, 1996 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: #12-92A Silverberg PUD - Preliminary PLANNER: Mike Ludwig ilvl�rlic g �ntPre�unina�be received by: Monday, January 13, 1?97ary 16, 1996 1. Access to the frontage road will need to be provided with phase 2. Therefor for approval of anything more than phase 1 a letter of intent is needed for that access point. 2. The access point onto the frontage road needs to be moved to the west. A median will need to be provided to restrict the access to right -in right -out at phase 2. This needs to be shown how this will work. 3. A right turn lane is needed at the Prospect Road access. Need to show how this fits in. Will the slope area you have shown be adequate with the additional width? 4. Auxiliary lanes will be needed on the frontage road at the time the access is provided. Row may be necessary to provide these and the design will be needed at final. 5. Permits will be needed from the state for the utility work in the frontage road and for the bore under the highway. Need indication from the state that these will be granted to verify that this site will have utility services. 6. The extent of off site improvements, including signal participation have not been determined by the City yet and need to be looked into. 7. Prospect Road to the east of the overpass is considered a collector street on the master street plan not an arterial as is indicated on the site plan. Additional width from the 50 foot flowline to flowline section will be needed due to the necessity of a median to limit movements and still provide for the left turn movements at the frontage road. 8. State Highway access permit will be needed for the frontage road access and possibly for the prospect road access (depends on who's right-of-way it is). Date: ��� 9� Signature u CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE 0__`PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS SITE �LANDSCAPE _UTILITY PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: December 24, 1996 DEPT: Stormwater Utility PROJECT: #12-92A Silverberg PUD - Preliminary PLANNER: Mike Ludwig All comments must be received by: Monday, January 13, 1997 A written response for each of the following comments must be submitted, with the redlined plans and report, at time of project resubmittal. The responses must note any revisions or clarifications completed in result of these comments. If responses are not submitted with the resubmittal, the project will be returned to the applicant without further review. This procedure will help the review process become more efficient and effective. Thank you. 1. The Boxelder Creek overflow is no longer an issue for this site. The Limited Map Maintenance Program Study for Boxelder Creek completed by the U.S. Bureau for Reclamation in February 1992 shows a 100-year discharge at the culvert crossing of I-25 of 1026 cfs. The capacity of the culvert is 1940 cfs, so there is no spill to the south.(Please see diagram) This study determined upstream spills over I-25, thus reducing the total discharge at the culvert crossing. It is the opinion of the City that this study is the best available information and could be used for the design of the development. Date: l _ _ c1 Signature 7 .tip CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ❑ PLAT GG k¢rr� P A sd bey f< COPIES OF REVISIONS ❑ SITE . Ludkr; 9 ❑ LANDSCAPE 4 y,,e5 - ❑ UTILITY fir; •` :, 2. More information is needed regarding the downstream outfall Swale for this site. The flow path of the swale needs to be defined from the site to a major drainageway. Please show supporting topography for the flow path. The outfall swale must be within a drainage easement for the entire flow path. All letters of intent to grant the necessary off - site drainage easements must be submitted by the revision date to be considered for a Preliminary Planning and Zoning Agenda. The final agreements will be needed at the final submittal. RESPONSE: I The proposed development must be detained at the 2-year historic rate. Please resize the detention pond based on the 2-year release rate. The resizing will increase the detention volume and may impact the site layout. RESPONSE: 4. Off -site flows from the basins north of Prospect should be considered to determine if any runoff spills over Prospect and across the site. Please show topography of the off -site basins. The canals should be considered full in the analysis. RESPONSE: 5. Stage -storage calculations are needed to verify the pond volume. Please determine the 100-year water surface elevation for the pond. RESPONSE: 6. Please verify the basin percent imperviousness used for the developed conditions model. It appears that basins 40, 50, 60, and 80 are nearly 100% impervious. RESPONSE: 7. The preliminary plat and site plan shows the area along the north and west sides of the property to be a landscaped area. This area will also be used to convey off -site drainage and should be noted on the plat and the site plan. RESPONSE: Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional review comments.