Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK CENTER PUD FINAL - 17 90D - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSCommuAR Planning and Environmental Wices Current Planning Citv of Fort Collins February 18, 1998 The W. W. Reynolds Companies c/o Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Eldon, Staff has reviewed the revisions for the Spring Creek Center PUD, Final that were submitted on January 21, 1998 and would like to offer the following comments: The Current Planning Department offers the following comments: a. Cod .Aes Please delete the general notes on Plan Sheets 3 and 4 which reference the LDGS submittal requirements for architectural elevations. Per Ordinance No. 114, 1997 (Amending Section 3 and Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 161, 1996), Final PUD submittal requirement #4 states: "Final architectural elevations of all buildings sufficient to convey the exact architectural intent of the proposed improvements including the location of proposed flushwall signs and all exterior building materials and colors. In addition, City staff may require samples of all building materials and colors." Building elevations of all sides of all buildings are required. All building materials and colors must be specifically designated abe led on building elevations and/or materials and colors table. Alternate building materials should be deleted. If architectural changes are deemed necessary by the applicant, the applicant may submit a Minor Amendment for such architectural changes for review by the City at a later time. vb. The landscaping on the architectural elevations does not match the landscape plan. Please either show the landscaping as proposed on the Landscape Plan or elete the landsca ing�ntir�e r from the building elevations. c. Additional architectural detail is needed on the. south and west elevations of Lot 7 and the south and east elevations of Lot 6. Additional 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 • RESPONSE: Please see the redlined plans and report for additional review comments. REVISION - COMMENT SHEET DATE: January 21, 1998 DEPT: Water/Wastewater PROJECT: #17-90D Spring Creek Center P.U.D. - (LDGS) Final All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 -Clearly define the utility easement for the water line along Prospect Rd. -Provide a note on the landscape plan requiring a 4' separation between shrubs and water/sewer mains. Maintain the required 10' separation between trees and water/sewer. Coordinate the landscape design with the civil design. -Will an irrigation tap be needed? If so, include it on the utility plans. -Standard general note on the utility plans should read 4.5 feet to 5.5 feet of cover. -Show the location of all fuel storage tanks on the overall utility plans. -Draw all meter pits to scale and provide the required separation. -For the watertight manhole cover, specify the Neenah watertight ring and cover: R-1916-E with type K cover and concealed pickhole. -Provide a minimum of 3 feet between valve boxes and valley pans. -There is a discrepancy in the elevation of the water main near the crossing of the storm sewer. Clearly define the separation distance between the water, storm and sanitary sewers. -Provide a minimum of 18" vertical separation at water and sewer (storm or sanitary) main crossings. -Include a detail for a traffic rated clean out. -See utility, site and landscape plans for other comments. Date: CHI X P X Utuuy n xeanne uuuty x Landscape oe City of Fort Collins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: January 21, 1998 TO: Mapping PROJECT: #17-90D Spring Creek Center P.U.D.- (LDGS) Final All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, February 11,1998 yleCr lli'-IVIC( 0. )`E? 1CL p� e �. NypoW_i heed �0 (vtl- ��� �Iv,_ar 5, Lo+ ItneS Sho,t�d J7c �c�Y�Eb J=f YAk c;A, Imo_ d �. JC2� vt L 0 + ISO . c .a 5, % HC Ou i C/Z 13cJ,,O/-7 CcvJ a-4 ).A7-Nz CuR✓cs (�o N°lr- MA-rCL-t THE ALPvtujs. P-AT(CaNTtZA, AAZ THC7 00=J - 7 /2k n1 C) e r.-T ? Jl Date: Signature:. CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site _ Drainage Report _ Oler _ Utility _ Redline Utility _ Lands* / 0.) cr �r City of Fort Collins • 19 landscaping is needed to screen the view of these service areas from / Midpoint Drive. vd. The rooftop mechanical units on all buildings (especially Lots 6 and 7) should be incorporated into the building architecture. Staff suggests the use of rooftop parapets rather than the deckin which is currently proposed on buildings 6 and 7. Cum "G Per Ordinance No. 114, 1997 (Amending Section 3 and Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 161, 1996), Final PUD submittal requirement #5 states: "Other information and data as the Planning and Zoning Board may require for full and complete consideration of the development." Pia � The Director of Planning has determined that land uses need to be 'Ali specified on each of the lots and within the Land Use Breakdown data. please label the building on Lot 2 as a "4,400 s.f. fast-food restaurant" fit' rather than "4,400 s.f. building'. The land use designations on the Site o�a Plan for Lots 3, 4, 6 and 7 are not adequate. A note on the site plan states: multi -tenant buildings may include retail, office, restaurant, and/or Y• business service uses". It appears that this land use designation and the building square footages are inconsistent with the Traffic Study prepared fain November 1996. According to the Traffic Study, Lots 3, 4, 6, 7 are oIdesignated as Business Park Uses. It is staff's understanding that the ITE trip generation numbers for a "business park" (which assumes a certain percentage of office use with the remainder of the building dedicated for associated warehouse use) may be significantly less than than the ITE trip generation numbers for retail, restaurant and business service uses. The inconsistency is magnified by the fact that the building square footages assumed in the Traffic Study do not match the current Site Plan. Parking ratios vary for each of the "multi -tenant" uses. It is difficult to determine whether the proposed parking ratio is insufficient, acceptable, or excessive. Additional landscaping is needed as per the attached redlined landscape plan. The cross -sections that were provided appear to be misleading. The setbacks of the north sides of buildings 3 and 4 are listed as 12 feet and 23 feet respectively. While these setbacks may be accurate for the selected point of reference, it appears that the most favorable point of reference (to the applicant) was selected. In reality Building 3 has a minimum setback of 5 feet between the building envelope and the back of the walk. Building 4 has a minimum setback of 0 feet between the building envelope and the back of the walk. A greater separation/setback is needed between the back of the walk and the proposed building envelopes. As noted on the attached redlined Site Plan, there are numerous sidewalk intersections that are indirect and odd. Please make these intersections more direct and purposeful. I. --The pedestrian crossings on the north and south sides of the fast-food restaurant should be raised, patterned concrete crossings. j. The applicant needs to schedule a meeting in the field with the City Forester to determine the appropriateness removing any existing trees. 0 Trees to be removed and trees that are to remain must be clearly labeled on the Landscape Plan. Tree preservation and protection notes must be added to the Landscape Plan. Please contact the City Forester at 221- 6361 for the necessary tree protection measures and verbiage. k. The following revisions to the Plat were requested in the October 29, 1997 comment letter. A revised Plat was not submitted on January 21,-199 staff review. • Springcreek in the title of the Plat should be two words (Spring Creek). • Should the Land Description be part of the Legal for the property? Possibly "more particularly described as......"? • Please move the Attorney's Certification to the area above the Director of Engineering's Certification. • Please add a signature blank for the Director of Engineering. • It does not appear that the Plat matches the proposed Site Plan (i.e. joint access between lots as shown on the Site Plan; eastern access to Midpoint Drive is missing; southern access on Specht Point is missing; etc.). • Please provide a scale for the Vicinity Map. / 2. Comments and redlined plans from the Engineering Department are attached. 3. Comments and redlined plans from the Stormwater Utility are attached. 4. Comments and redlined plans from the Water and Wastewater Utility are attached. 5. Comments from the Mapping Department are attached. 0 r[: This completes the review comments at this time. Additional comments may be forthcoming as the various departments and reviewing agencies continue to review this request. A meeting between the applicant and staff has been scheduled for 11 A.M. on Thursday February 25, 1998 at the Stormwater Utility Large Conference Room (235 Matthews) to discuss these comments. In order to minimize the development review time period, it is vital that a complete package of revisions be submitted which addresses all of the above stated comments, including a written response addressing each comment. Please contact me for the required number of plan revisions prior to the revision submittal. Revisions are reviewed for a period of three weeks. Items are not scheduled for Planning and Zoning Board hearings until all comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Please contact me at 221-6206 if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, 44 , Michael Ludwig, AIC City Planner xc: Mike Dean, Engineering Stormwater Utility file/Project Planner REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: January 21, 1998 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: #17-901) Spring Creek Center P.U.D. - (LDGS) Final PLANNER: Mike Ludwig ENGINEER: Michael Dean All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting: PLAT Wednesday, February 11, 1998 - Title of Plat should read "A Plat of Spring Creek Center P.U.D. being a replat of Tract A, Centerp0int Park. - Provide a legal description and a statement of ownership and maintenance. - Use the new Attorney's certificate language attached. - Provide a copy of the Plat in the Utility Plans. - Additional comments provided by the Mapping Division. UTILITY PLAN - Swale 12 is located within the Public R.O.W. and needs to be moved on to the Spring Creek Center Site. The sidewalk should be located within the Public R.O.W.. - The T.I.S. does not appear to be accurate please revise and resubmit. The Business Park Land Use classification is too value without knowing the proposed tenants. - The site has a poor circulation pattern that results in conflicting left hand turns which are a safety concern. - Prepare cost estimate for future construction of the local street portion of Timberline Rd. Improvements for escrow purposes. ** See redline plans for additional comments ** Date:2, 11 Z98 Signature: Please send copies of marked revisions at ite -zhUtility �LAandscape�` City of Fort Collins ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this Subdivision Plat has been duly executed as required pursuant to §2.2.3(C)(3)(a) through (e) inclusive of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins and that all persons signing this Subdivision Plat on behalf of a corporation or other entity are duly authorized signatories under the laws of the State of Colorado. This Certification is based upon an examination of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado as of the day of 199_ and other information discovered by me through reasonable inquiry and is limited as authorized by §2(C)(3)(f) of the Land Use Code. Attorney Address: Registration No.: 11 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: z 1 1 (lea DEPT: Stormwater PROJECT: 5Fglt-�e-t Cr�cck Cc�TF�z PLANNER: 1. Pond 3 is shown to release to the existing cross pan at the 100-year historic rate. This area should be directed directly to Spring Creek or detained at the 2-year historic rate. The FAA method should be used to calculate the detention volume. The method used in the report calculates volumes lower than the acceptable standard. RESPONSE: 2. The diversion swale along the west site is shown to be within the right-of-way. The swale should be located outside the right-of-way. RESPONSE: Dane- r� /(I l CHECK HERE 7 YOU WISH TO RECEM COPIES OF REVISIONS Pk _ Sk _ —UtTq _ReETUhaj — . CC-.• Inn I tc E 1> G_ 4 rJ • 2El'tiows VIA I ME W bUJ t!:? ��' of Fort Collins • 3. The 500-year floodplain for the Spring Creek needs to be delineated. It is not clear if the proposed gas station in the northeast corner is in the 500-year floodplain. Please state the elevation of the finished floor and the 500-year floodplain. RESPONSE: 4. The water quality treatment for the gas stations is not acceptable. They do not appear to offer spill containment capabilities, and appear to be a maintenance problem. Please eliminate the filters and provide spill containment for the gas stations. The runoff will be treated by the Stormceptor and extended detention. RESPONSE: 5. Supporting calculations for the culverts 4 and 10 need to be provided along with the other culvert calculations. RESPONSE: 6. Several of the storm sewer lengths in the supporting calculations do not match the lengths on the plans. Also, the floodplain elevation should be used as the downstream hydraulic grade line. RESPONSE: 7. Please provide water quality treatment for the release from Pond 3 and basins 5 and 7. A water quality pond with a 40-hour detention time is recommended. RESPONSE: HEC-2 Comments 8. The fully developed condition model for Spring Creek should be used to determine the 500-year overflow for Timberline. The City is currently updating this model. The most updated model should be used for this analysis. RESPONSE: 9. The pre -development and post -development starting water surface elevations are based on normal depth for cross-section 1000 with 75 cfs. This is not an accurate estimate of the starting water surface elevation because part of the 75 cfs splits off from 11 the channel. Please revise the model to accurately model the starting water surface elevation. RESPONSE: 10. A split flow weir is defined between cross -sections 2025 and 2000 for both the pre - development and post -development conditions. However, there is no weir at this location. The split flow analysis should begin after cross-section 2000. Please provide more explanation of the split flow analysis. RESPONSE: 11. Please provide more discussion on the modeling methodology used for the analysis. Encroachments are defined for the portion of the cross-section left of the weir point. Why were encroachments used? And, why were the cross -sections defined for the areas to the left of the weir points, when the split flow does not return to the channel? RESPONSE: 12. There is a concern with the results of the pre -development condition model that shows only .75 cfs continuing down Midpoint Drive. It appears that more than .75 cfs will remain in the street because the street section has a capacity greater than .75 cfs. The minimum flow that would continue down midpoint would be the capacity of the street section. Please review and revise the modeling approach to provide more consistent results for the flow in Midpoint drive. RESPONSE: 13. Please use the HEC-2 output to map the inundated areas from the overflow. RESPONSE: 14. Cross -sections 1000 and 1074 show the weir point to be lower than the high point to the left of the street. It appears that the flow will spill at the high points rather than where the weir points are defined. RESPONSE: 15. There are several cross -sections that are shown as extended in the output. Please revise these cross -sections to eliminate any vertical extension of the cross -sections.