HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARK SOUTH COMMERCIAL PLAZA, 2ND FILING, LOT 2B, CARWASH - PDP - 37-94E - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSWater/Wastewater:
1. This development needs an off -site easement from AutoZone for the
sanitary sewer service to the site.
2. The proposed 1 " water service is probably not sufficient. A 2" service will
work; however, this would affect the detention on -site.
Transportation Planning:
A modification of the standard in Section 3.5.3(B)(1) of the LUC is needed
and must be submitted to the City for review. The criteria for a modification
request is set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)of the LUC.
This completes staff (and outside reviewing agencies) review and comments at this
time. Red -lined plan from City departments are included with this comment letter.
Additional comments and red -lined plans may be forthcoming. Another round of
staff review may be necessary. This proposal is subject to the 90-day revision re -
submittal requirement (from the date of this comment letter, being December 9,
2004) as set forth in Section 2.2.1 1(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all
of your red -lined plans when you re -submit. The number of copies of each
document to re -submit is shown on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this
project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341.
Yours Truly,
Steve Olt
City Planner
cc: Katie Moore
The Architects Studio
King Surveyors Inc.
R,J. McNutt & Associates
Current Planning File #37-94E
Page 9
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Gary Lopez
Topic.* zoning
Number: 118 Created: 11 /30/2004
[1 1 /30/041 Show building dimensions and distances to property lines
Number: 119 Created: 11 /30/2004
[1 1 /30/041 "Pre -cast concrete type" is shown for trash enclosure wall. Detail
shows it matching the existing block. Simulated brick/block concrete wallboard
will not be acceptable as a texture finish to match the block. Matching block is
required.
The following comments were expressed.at staff review on December 1, 2004:
Engineering:
1. There is an existing 4" gas main in an easement along the south side of West
Horsetooth Road. It must be demonstrated that this main is meeting the
minimum separation requirement from the car wash building.
2. Clearly show the project phasing (Phases 1 & 2) on the utility plans.
3. There must be a fire lane connection from this property to Manhattan
Avenue. This development is responsible for either verifying that a
connection exists or providing the necessary easement for a fire lane.
4. The sheet titles and filing #'s must be consistent on all plans.
5. The is still some concern about the scannability of some of the drawings.
Stormwater:
1. Water quality detention should not be provided over the parking lot. This is a
very undesirable method. It is a big issue with the development proposal.
Page 8
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff
Topic: Transportation
Number: 42 Created: 1 /5/2004
[1 1 /30/041
[5/18/04] Same comment applies (see red lines).
[1 /5/04] According to the Section 3.2.2 (C.5.a) of the Land Use Code walkways that
link street sidewalks to building entrances through parking lots or along drive
aisles shall be a minimum 6 feet in width. This is especially important along transit
routes and a planned major transit station for the Mason Transportation Corridor.
Please increase the walkway along the east side of the property to a minimum of 6
feet. Also is there an opportunity for the walkway to be located so that both
adjacent land uses can utilize the walk? For example, can the walk be located
further to the eastern edge of the property line along the Phase II section of the
parcel?
Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: David Averill
Topic. Transportation
Number: 124 Created: 11 /30/2004
[1 1 /30/041 Can the walkway directly south of the proposed building in Phase 2 be
moved north so that it abuts the drainage and utility easement? This would result
in a consistent parkway width and would also facilitate a straight drive aisle
crossing for pedestrians. Understanding that the attached walk on the southern
most drive aisle needs to be configured this way due to the existing drainage pipe,
is there any reason that the access ramp (to the west) can't be moved north to
better align the cross walk with the walk that will be constructed to the west? See
redlined utility plan for clarification.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic.- Genera/
Number: 116 Created: 11 /29/2004
[1 1 /29/04] Provide the required landscape/utility separation distances on the
landscape plans.
Number: 117
Created: 11 /29/2004
[1 1 /29/04] Provide an offsite utility easement as well as an offsite construction
easement for the extension of the sanitary sewer service from the Auto Zone site.
Provide the standard thrust block and traffic rated cleanout details on the utility
plan set.
Page 7
Number: 127
Created: 12 / 2 / 2004
[12/2/04] The water quality pond, as designed, will have a large detention area
over the parking lot (the area below contour elevation 43.55, see grading plan). It
is common practice to have quantity detention over the parking lot up to a 12-inch
depth, however having water quality 40-hour extended detention over a parking lot
will be undesirable for the owner and can cause maintenance concerns regarding
the asphalt parking lot. The pond may become to much of a nuisance and liability
for the property owner. An alternative should be designed to locate the water
quality detention over a landscaped area.
Number: 128
Created: 12/2/2004
[12/2/04] At final plan review, please add a pond and basin summary table and all
drainage details.
Number: 129
Created: 12 /2 /2004
[12/2/04] Other comments may follow at final plan review when more information
is submitted.
Number: 130
Created: 12 /2 /2004
[12/2/04]
1. The notes under the heading "Grading and Erosion Control", plan sheet #2
must be deleted. They are redundant/contradictory to the notes on the
erosion control sheet.
2. Please provide City of Fort Collins standard project schedule, calculations,
surety, etc.
3. The outlet to the WQ/detention pond in the southeast corner of the site should
be protected with a BMP until the site no longer poses an erosion/sediment
runoff potential.
Number: 131
Created: 12 / 2 / 2004
[12/2/04] A detention pond maintenance agreement between lot owners in the
Park South Commercial Plaza is attached for reference.
Page 6
Department: PFA
Topic. Genera/
Number: 8
[1 1 /17/041
[5/21 /04]
Issue Contact: Michael Chavez
Created: 12 / 30/ 2003
(12/30/031 Address Numerals: Address numerals shall be visible from the street
fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6-inch numerals on a
contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).
1997 UFC 901.4.4
Number: 9
[1 1 /17/041
[5/21 /04]
Created: 12 / 30/ 2003
[12/30/03] Water Supply: Commercial No commercial building can be greater
then 300 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire hydrants are required with a maximum
spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of
delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. 1997
UFC 901.2.2.2
Number: 10
[1 1 /17/041
[5/21 /04]
Created: 12/30/2003
[12/30/03) Hazardous Materials: Corrosive, flammable liquids, reactive, or toxic
materials (As defined in the Uniform Fire Code) if used, stored or handled on site
must have a Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis (HMIA) completed and supplied to
the Planning Department and the Fire Department (submitted to Ron Gonzales)
FCLUC 3.4.5 (C)
Department: Stormwater Utility
Topic., Drainage
Number: 60
Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Created: 5 / 17/ 2004
[12/2/04]
At final design, the detention pond needs to be discussed as to what might be
required due to there being two ponds connected with a culvert. The culvert might
need to be sized to carry the 100-year flow for some or all the basins.
Page 5
0
[4/30/041 Building envelopes/outlines are not allowed over utility easements.
Overhangs extending no farther than 2.5' into the utility easement are permissible.
If this is an overhang, please clearly label it as such.
Number: 49 Created: 5/4/2004
[1 1/ 16/041 It is still unclear how the emergency access easement for the fire lane
will be connected to another EAE or public street ROW, as needed. Also, it is
unclear whether the radii used for the curves on the EAE meet the LUC requirement:
25' interior radius and 50' exterior radius (same center point).
[5/4/041 A fire lane is shown on the plans, but is shown only as a 'u' and isn't
shown to connect to another fire lane or street. Usually an emergency access
easement is required to be dedicated for fire lanes, and the EAE would connect to a
public ROW or another EAE. Please work with PFA, and if they require an easement,
please show it on all plans and provide a legal, sketch, and deed of dedication
using the City's standard language. Please contact me if you need a copy of this
language.
Number: 50 Created: 5 /4/2004
[1 1 /16/041 The utility plan title needs to be revised - it says 3rd filing.
[5/4/041 Please match the titles on the plans; some say Lot 2-B Park South, but the
utility plan says park south commercial plaza minor subdivision 2nd filing, lot 2-b.
In the City's system, it is Park South Commercial Plaza, 2nd Filing, Lot 213,
Horsetooth Carwash.
Number: 114 Created: 1 1 /16/2004
[1 1 /16/041 Please review all plans for scanability and revise as necessary. LCUASS
appendix E-6 explains scanning requirements.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore
Topic., General
Number: 1 1 5 Created: 11 /18/2004
[1 1 / 18/041 A transformer location needs to be coordinated with Light & Power.
Department: Natural Resources
Topic. General
Number: 120
[1 1 /30/041 No issues.
Issue Contact: Doug Moore
Created: 11 /30/2004
Page 4
[12/30/03] Reading the conceptual review letter sent to the applicant by Current
Planning, then reading conceptual review comments in the Engineering file, it
appears that Engineering was mis-quoted in the letter sent to the applicant. That
letter stated that: "Development of this property will have to dedicate necessary
additional street right-of-way (ROW) and easements behind the ROW for West
Horsetooth Road. There currently is 50' of right-of-way (south of the centerline of
the street) and 57.5' is' ultimately required." Engineering's file comments state that
the existing ROW on Horsetooth is 50' plus 12' for the right turn lane, and 7.5' of
additional ROW is needed, and that the utility easement should be a total of 1 5'
beyond the new ROW. The additional 7.5' of ROW is still required, as is the 1 5'
utility easement behind that.
1.8.03 - Following a meeting of the Transportation Coordination group this
morning, it was agreed that the City would be willing to accept ROW dedication to
the back of the existing sidewalk, approximately 4' as shown on the plans, in lieu of
the standard 7.5' ROW. Please note this as an approved variance on the utility
plans. Variance of the utility easement width would need to meet the approval of
possibly affected utilities. If a narrower utility easement is requested, please
submit an 8 1 /2 x 1 1 sketch of the area showing the proposed utility easement,
and I will route it to the appropriate utilities for their approval. The utilities are
given 2 weeks to respond to these requests.
Number: 13
[1 1 /16/041
Created: 12/30/2003
[4/30/04] Repeat:
[12/30/031 Please show phasing clearly, and match the utility plans to the site and
landscape plan phasing. (Required for Final Compliance).
Number: 16 Created: 12 /30/2003
[1 1 /16/041 No utility plan checklist was resubmitted.
[4/30/041 Repeat:
[12/30/031 Please see redlined plans and utility plan checklist for any additional
comments.
Number: 48
Created: 4/30/2004
[1 1 /16/041 A note was added to the utility plans, but not to the site/landscape
plans. Also, the overhang was shown outside of the easement on the site plan, but
not on the utility plans. Please coordinate.
Page 3
is concrete being shown as the surface for the overall car wash pad site and a
symbol is not being used.
Number: 123 Created: 11 /30/2004
[1 1 /30/041 A detail for the retaining walls screening the vacuum machine islands
must be provided on one of the plans (Site, Landscape, or Elevations).
Number: 133 Created: 12 /9/2004
[12/9/04] The word "vacuum" is misspelled on the Site Plan and Elevations Plan.
Topic.- Utility Plans
Number: 126 Created: 11 /30/2004
0 1 /30/04) Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy/Public Service (PSCO) offered the
following comments:
a. PSCO has an existing 4" PED main that lays 4' south of the West Horsetooth
Road property line.
b. No trees can be planted within 4' of gas mains or services.
c. PSCO also has a 2" PED gas main located in a 20' utility easement near the
proposed building in Phase 2.
d. The subdivision plat shows the legal as 35-T7N-R68W. The Range should be
69W.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Topic.- General
Number: 11 Created: 12/30/2003
[1 1 / ] 6/041 Has the PSCO issue been resolved? See below.
[4/30/04] Clearly label and dimension the proposed ROW for Horsetooth and the
utility easement behind it on the site and landscape plans.
Also, please work with XCEL/PSCO to address their concerns with the building
placement in relation to their gas line in the utility easement on Horsetooth.
Comment from Jim DeWilde: "PSCO has an existing 4" PED gas main laying 12' into
the existing 15' U.E. PSCO needs min. T clearance from gas main to proposed
building wall. Any relocation of main would be at developer's expense."
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
Citpof Fort Collins
Doberstein Lemburg Commercial Date: 12/09/2004
c/o Dan Bernth
702 West Drake Road, Building B-102
Fort Collins, CO. 80526
Staff has reviewed your submittal for PARK SOUTH COMMERCIAL PLAZA, 2ND
FILING, LOT 2B (HORSETOOTH CARWASH) - PDP - TYPE I, and we offer the following
comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt
Topic: Site Lighting
Number: 132 Created: 12/9/2004
[12/9/04] On the Site Photometric Plan, there are several spots that exceed the
allowable maximum lighting level of 10 foot candles, as set forth in Section
3.2.40)(7) of the Land Use Code (LUC).
Topic., Site Plan
Number: 121
Created: 11 /30/2004
[1 1 /30/041 This property is in the C - commercial Zoning District. On the Site Plan,
under the Building and Land Use Data, it indicates that the PROPOSED LAND USE is:
"All uses within the Industrial District - Type I Category and subject to
administrative review are permitted." First, the property is not in the Industrial
District. Second, the statement is way too broad for this development plan. There
are 41 different uses that are permitted in the C - Commercial District subject to a
Type I, administrative review. What is the applicant's intent in wanting to allow a
wholesale shopping list of land uses on such a small property? Not all of the Type I
uses are appropriate in this location and to potentially diverge so dramatically with
land uses after this development plan is approved would almost certainly require
another development plan to be submitted to the City for review. Please further
evaluate the land use potential for this property and narrow down the PROPOSED
LAND USE on the Site Plan.
Number: 122 Created: 11 /30/2004
[1 1 /30/041 The "stippled" areas on the Site Plan are presumably concrete walks
and pads. Please note this on the plan as "typical". This is important because there
Page 1