HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK CENTER PUD FINAL - 17 90D - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTS (2)To
CommAy Planning and EnvironmentaArvices
Current Planning
October 29, 1997
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 documents for the Spring Creek Center PUD, Final that were
submitted on September 18, 1997 and would like to offer the following comments:
t. The Building Inspections Department offers the following comments:
& The site shall be accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with
Uniform Building Code Section 3103 and UBC Appendix Section 3106.
Provide a designated and marked "accessible route of travel' between all the
buildings on the site and building exits and entrances and the public way
(public sidewalk). Accessible routes shall comply with ANSI A117.1-1992
with running slopes no greater than 1:20 and cross slopes no steeper than
1:50. Where routes cross lanes for vehicle traffic they shall be designated
and marked as a cross walk. Provide parking and signs per Appendix
Section 3107. Parking and access aisles shall comply with ANSI A117.1-
1992 with slopes. no greater than 1:50 in any direction;
b. Food service establishments require approval by the Larimer County Health.
Department at the time of building permit application. Please contact Jim
Devore at (970) 49&6775 for submittal information.
c: Buildings which exceed 5,000 square feet in area. must be equipped with an
automated fire suppression system or be compartmentalized by fire -resistive
construction as required by Section 3802, UBC as amended by the City of
Fort Collins.
d. Buildings shall be designed to comply with the Fort Collins Non-residential
Energy Code (ASHRAE 90.1 with local amendments).
281 North College Avenue - PO. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 !, FAX (970) 416-2020
9. Pond 3 is shown to discharge across Specht Point Drive and through the existing
commercial site to the east. The preliminary design did not show this release. Basins 2, 3,
and 4 should drain directly to Spring Creek.
RESPONSE:
10. There is a concern that the proposed median across the low point of Timberline Road
may effect the 75 cfs overflow. Please show more details of the existing and proposed
conditions of the overflow of Timberline Road.
RESPONSE:
11. Please show the floodplain elevation on the pipe profiles. The 100-year floodplain
elevation should be used as the tailwater elevation for the storm sewer calculations:
RESPONSE:
12. The area inlet dimensions shown on the plans do not match the area inlet calculations.
Please specify the correct dimensions and open area.
RESPONSE:
Please refer to the redlined report and plans for additional review comments..
N
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
DATE: October 22, 1997 DEPT: Water & Wastewater
PROJECT: # 17-90D Spring Creek Center P.U.D.
(LDGS)Final
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting:
Wednesday, October 22, 1997
-Clearly define the utility easement for the water line2along Prospect Rd.ik j ; n -
-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.
-Will an irrigation tap be needed. Lf so, include on the utility plans.
-Maintain 5' separation between mains and flow line of curb and gutters.
-Standard general note on the utility plans should read 4.5 feet to 5.5 feet of cover.
-Add note that all water main to be D.I.P. encased in poly -wrap.
-Utility layout between lots 4 and 6 needs to be reconfigured. The layout as proposed is
unacceptable..
-Label all existing water and sewer mains with size and ownership in all views..
-Provide a mu" i mum of 18" vertical separation at water and sewer (storm or sanitary) main
crossings.
-Use current city standard details, and include the following details: 1 1/2" meter pit, water
main bedding, concrete encasement and traffic rated clean out.
-See utility and landscape plans for other comments.
Date:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
X PLAT SITE _DRAINAGE REPORT _OTHER
_1� U nLn-V X REDLINE UTILITY JX LANDSCAPE
Tr.. 1.._
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
Qtv of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: September 18, 1997 DEPT: Mapping
PROJECT: #17-90D Spring Creek Center P.U.D.
(LDGS) Final
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting:
Wednesday, October 22, 199 ,
5- 46 4, �tkoL+ Tkl:5 is 4 yepICJ
�II � )
B t YL1CT � Ce''I`Fe�-?01.4 FQ�F.
ILAi CLo Seri ouT This GL ""C7ccr DF Sohte' OUTan %�vv� rtT
CU12VG=) DO NdT ✓ AT=-H
T,a CU 2.! C-S ?
Date: signature:
HE IF YOU WEB RECIlVE OOPS OF REV ONONS
Sk _ Damage Report _ Ok
Uff _ Redline v""`J —IAA* C3LY of Fort Collins
IN ONA" .
Due to the diversity of habitat, protection from human use, and presence of open water
during the winter, Cattail Chorus Natural Area supports extremely high bird use
compared to other sites of similar and larger size in the Fort Collins area. From
1984-19881 1 visited this site frequently (total of 204 visits) to record seasonal bird use.
Since 1988, 1 have recorded winter use of this site during the annual Audubon
Christmas Bird Count.
I have recorded 130 species of birds using Cattail Chorus. The ponds themselves get
periodic high use by a variety of waterfowl and waterbirds. I have observed the
following wetland species using the two ponds that Spring Creek flows through: eared
grebe, western grebe, pied -billed grebe (young produced), double -crested cormorant,
great blue heron, green heron, black -crowned night -heron, American bittern, Canada
goose (young produced), white -fronted goose, snow goose, mallard (young produced),
gadwall, common pintail, green -winged teal, blue -winged teal, cinnamon teal, American
wigeon, northern shoveler, wood duck, ring-necked duck, canvasback, lesser scaup,
common goldeneye, bufflehead, common merganser (young produced), sora, Virginia
rail, American coot, common snipe, killdeer, greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs,
American avocet, herring gull, California gull, ring -billed gull, glaucous gull, Forster's
tern, belted kingfisher, marsh wren, common yellowthroat (young produced),
red -.winged blackbird (young produced), and yellow -headed blackbird (young
produced).
Use by ducks and geese of these two ponds can be extremely high in winter where they
gather on the remaining unfrozen portions of the ponds to feed, bath/preen, or rest..
Just last winter (Christmas Bird Count, Dec. 21, 1996), 1 recorded a total of 214 ducks
(mallards, shovelers, wigeons, and ring-necked ducks) on these two ponds alone.
When open water on Riverbend Ponds is nearly completely frozen over, numbers of
waterfowl on Cattail Chorus can be 10 times as high as those observed on Riverbend
Ponds (a site more than 5 times larger than Cattail Chorus).
In addition, I have observed about 40 species of other migratory and summer birds, not
typically considered wetland species, including 14 species of warblers, feeding on
insects hatched from these ponds. Cattail Chorus also supports a relatively high
population of both painted and snapping turtles and chorus frogs.
0
0
r1
U
2.
0
4.
G�
The Light and Power Utility offers the following comments:
a. Please see that attached streetlight layout map and adjust trees accordingly
to comply with streetlight / tree separation standards. Please return this map
to Mike Ludwig at Current Planning with plan revisions.
b. Some of the proposed transformer locations may change due to
development phasing and accessibility.
The Transportation Department comments are forthcoming.
The Zoning Department offers the following comments:
a. General Note #11 on the Site Plan and Planting Note #5 on the Landscape
Plan indicate potential phasing of landscaping and improvements. Please
designate the phasing on the Site and Landscape Plan at this time.
OthervAse, a minor amendment to the PUD will be requited at a later time to
phase landscaping.
The Current Planning Department offers the following comments:
NMI 0
a. Springcreek in the title of the Plat should be two words (Spring Creek).
b. Should the Land Description be part of the Legal for the property? Possibly
"more particularly described as.....,"?
C. Please move the Attorney's Certification to the area above the Director of
Engineering's Certification.
d. Please add a signature blank for the Director of Engineering.
e. 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.).
f. Please provide a scale for the Vicinity Map.
s
g. Please eliminate the "t° from the square footage indicated for each building
and in the Land Use Breakdown information.
h. Please indicate the square footage of the car -wash buildings on Lot 1 (945
s.f.?) and Lot 5 (600 s.f.?).
L The primary building entrance to Lot 2 does not have any direct pedestrian
access without crossing parking lots, drive aisles, etc. The driveway crossing
must emphasize and place priority on the pedestrian access. It is
questionable whether painted striping creates a pedestrian emphasis.
j. Is there adequate stacking room for the drive-thru lane for Lot 2? It appears
that stacking may conflict with parking along the development's main spine.
k. There appear to be numerous erous backing conflicts among parking spaces.
Conflicts on Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7 are noted on the attached redlined plans.
Other conflicts may exist..
I. The proximity of the sidewalk/path to the side slope of the Spring Creek
Channel was a concern of the Planning and Zoning Board during
consideration of the Preliminary PUD. The path has been pulled back on Lot
2. Cross-section drawings at various points along the trail (as noted on the
attached redlines) would help staff evaluate the appropriateness of the
sidewalk location.
M. The location of the bike path is also impacted by the increased square
footage of the buildings on Lots 3 and 4, The cross sections requested in
comment "I" will also help staff to evaluate the appropriateness of the
setbacks for the buildings on Lots 3 and 4 from the bike path and the side
slopes of the Spring Creek Channel.
n. The zoning designations for surrounding properties no longer exist. Please
revise these designations according to the City Plan zoning map.
o. The pedestrian crossing areas of the main spine between Lots 3,4,5 and 6
and Lots 2,3,6, and 7 need to be enhanced. This is an urban intensity
development. These areas need to emphasize the pedestrian rather than
following the curb of the parking lot.
P. The drive aisles widths within the project vary among 24', 26', 28% 30' and
60'. It appears to be local, collector, minor arterial, arterial private drives. Is
this really necessary? By using a standard width (suggest24'), the additional
area could be used to provide better pedestrian amenities.. This is a very
high intensity development that is dominated by auto -related uses. It
appears that the pedestrian access was added last and follows the curbs of
the parking areas. Please also refer to comments/redlines from the Advance
Planning Department.
q. Land Uses need to be specified on each of the Lots and within the Land Use
Breakdown data. Staff cannot determine if parking ratios are adequate
without the land. uses being specified. General Note 11 is not adequate for
this purpose.
r. The following revisions are needed to the Land Use Breakdown Data on the
Site Plan:
Please eliminate the note "estimated areas" from the coverage
information.. This is a Final PUD. Therefore building square footage
must be specific.
• Does the Lot 1 coverage include the car -wash building?
• The Lot 4 coverage is listed as 7;200 square feet but the Lot 4
building footprint says 8,000 square feet. Please clarify.
• The total building square footage may need to be revised.
• What does the 92,500 square feet represent? Total floor area?
Please label.
Staff is unable to determine if the parking totals and ratios are
appropriate without landuses being designated on the Site Plan.
S. General Note 1 references a hotel. Which lot is the hotel proposed on?
t. Please add a sentence to General Note 4 which states that a minor
amendment must be submitted and approved if the change in building
entries causes changes to the approved building elevations.
u. General Note 6 references the screening of roof -top mechanical equipment.
Please make sure that the building elevations actually meet this requirement..
Prospect Road and Timberline are elevated higher than this site.
V. General Note 11 is irrelevant and should be deleted as this is a Final PUD
application for the entire property. References to the Land Use Code should
be eliminated.
W. General Note 12 is too broad and needs to be amended. This is a Final
PUD application. The only uses allowed will be those permitted by the
Business Service and/or Auto Related and Roadside Commercial Uses Point
Charts and notedon the Lots and in the Land Use Breakdown Data.
X. Please make sure that the legal description on the Site Plan and Plat are the
same.
Y. The parking areas on the south side the buildings on Lots 6 and 7 do not
function properly. Drive aisles are off -set from access points to the
surrounding streets. One drive aisle is 60 feet wide. There is not adequate
setback of parking from the perimeter sidewalks, etc. Please redesign these
areas.
._ -M
Z. Additional screening for parking areas is needed on Lots 2, 6 and 7. Please
refer to the attached redlined landscape plan..
aa. Additional landscaping is needed adjacent to the stacking lane for the Lot 5
car wash.
ab. Staff recommends a double row of shrubs between parking areas and the
public right-of-way.
ac. Plant note #5 indicates construction phases. Please show the phases at this
time or a minor amendment will be required at a later time to phase
landscaping.
ad. Plant note #14 should be revised to reflect the requirement of a minor
amendment for changes to the Landscape Plan.
LO-Mcf-MI •1
ae. Separate building elevations of all sides of all proposed buildings are
required.
af. All building materials and colors must be specified on the building elevations.
The current designations appear to be too broad in range.
ag. Please show the location of any wall signage on the building elevations.
NOTE. A redlined plan set of the Plat, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and
Building Elevations is attached. Please return this set to Mike Ludwig
at Current Planning with plan revisions.
6. The Natural Resources Department stated that the developer still needs to
address the issue of water quality for runoff to Spring Creek from the parking area.
The Cat -tail Chorus Natural Area is located downstream on Spring Creek and has
been recognized as a high use winter waterfowl area (see attachment). Therefore,
the question of water quality impacts during the winter months becomes an
important consideration, and it also raises the question of snow removal, storage,
and management of the runoff from snow melt on site during winter. The City is, in
particular, concerned that the Spring Creek Channel not be used as a repository for
snow removed from the parking lots. A meeting needs to be held with the
Stormwater Utility, Natural Resources Department and applicant to discuss what
Water Quality Best Management Practices are appropriate.
7. Comments and redlined plans from the Engineering Department are attached.
Please return redlined plans to Mike Ludwig at Current Planning with plan revisions.
0
8. Comments and redlined plans/reports from the Stormwater Utility are attached.
Please return redlined plans/reports to Mike Ludwig at Current Planning with plan
revisions.
9. Comments. and redlined plans from the Water and Wastewater Utility are
attached. Please return redlined plans to Mike Ludwig at Current Planning with plan
revisions.
10. Comments and relined plans from the Mapping Department are attached. Please
return redlined plans to Mike Ludwig at Current Planning with plan revisions.
Comments from the Engineering Department are attached.
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.
Please contact me for the required number of plan revisions. Please provide a written
response addressing each comment. 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.
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.
Please contact me at 221-6206 if you have any questions or concerns related to these
comments. I would like to schedule a meeting with you as soon as possible, if necessary,
to discuss these comments.
Sincerely,
XO�4
(
Michael Ludwig, AICP
City Planner
xc: Mike Dean, Engineering
Stormwater Utility
file/Project Planner
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
DATE: October 21,1997 DEPT: Engineering
PROJECT: #17-90D Spring Creek Center P.U.D. (LDGS) Final
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
ENGINEER: Michael K. Dean
All comments must be received by: 10/2.2/97
No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below or attached)
Design Timberline Rd .to majorarterial standards for portion along property -frontage and 1000'
in both directions for future build out and to ensure alignment with the Timberline Rd.
Extension.
Estimate project costs to construct future improvements to Timberline Rd. including one 12'
lane extension to the existing structure for review by this department.
Prepare to escrow funds for Timberline Rd. improvements at time of development agreement.
Dedicate adequate ROW and Easements as per current City Standards.
Show Drainage and Detention Easements. (Include parking lot detention areas.)
Clarify overflow weirs on drawings and legend.
Re -engineer swale at SW corner to allow fos sidewalk connections..
Date: _�_zy Signature: �
PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: LAT
�VITE
�JJ LANDSCAPE
PROJECT
COMMENT S�-IEET
Current Planning
DATE: September 18, 1997 DEPT: Stormwater
PROJECT: #17-90D Spring Creek Center P.U.D.
(LDGS) Final
PLANNER: Mike Ludwig
All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting:
Wednesday, October 22, 1997
1. The drainage report discusses that gas stations are proposed for this site. City
floodplain regulations state that no critical facilities, including gas stations, are allowed in
the 500-year floodplain. Please show the 500-year floodplain on the plans to determine if
either of the proposed gas stations are within the floodplain. The overflow of Timberline,
known as the 75 cfs spill for the 100 year storm, should be determined for the 500-year
storm. The proposed conditions HEC-2 for the overflow should be completed to
determine if the gas station, including the storage tanks, are outside the 500-year
floodplain.
RESPONSE:
2. Provide a BEC-2 exhibit for the proposed and existing conditions models. The exhibits
should include the location of each cross-section, supporting topography, split flow
locations, water surface elevations, and floodplain delineations.
RESPONSE:
Date: 10- R 7-
n+ris avew15
3. The drainage outfalls to the Spring Creek need to be further considered in order to
minimize erosion and aesthetic impacts to the creek corridor. The number of outfalls to
the creek. should be minim, ed. Please show more detail of how the existing bank will tie
in with the proposed outfall and rip -rap. The energy dissipation should be placed outside
the immediate main channel section.
RESPONSE:
4. The existing rip -rap structure is not in acceptable condition. The rip -rap has been
washed into the stream, and the existing sides to the structure have been eroded. Please
provide details for the repair of the rip -rap. The rip -rap should be buried.
RESPONSE:
5. Water quality treatment measures were requested with the preliminary submittal.
Please provide water quality treatment for the runoff generated from the site. A water
quality pond with a 40-hour detention time is recommended.
RESPONSE:
6. Please label the existing contours of Spring Creek. The proposed grading must be
clearly shown to tie in with the existing ground surface.
RESPONSE:
7. Provide more details of the storm sewer extension under Midpoint Drive. How much
flow drains to this pipe? Was the pipe or outfall sized for this flow?
RESPONSE:
8. There are several locations where the proposed grading does not match the basin.lines..
Please adjust grading to match basin lines and callout all high points.
RESPONSE: