Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARBOR PLAZA PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-07-31DATE5 NOV 84 A TMEEl,: E `� IT ITEM: 137-80B ARBOR PLAZA PUD Preliminary • Cuo"'MMENTS 6� qaz flu- av aq y� DA;IV-C �. aA�j'K,/ To: Jim Gefroh Re: Arbor PUD Sept. 25, 1985 - Page 2 drive-thru uses should be indicated on the site plan. It appears that the future Walmart expansion will interfere with circulation on the site. Motorcycle parking must be provided separate from car parking. Note #24 on the site plan should be removed. Restricted hours loading zones have not been successful in other commercial projects. The loading zones should be limited to solely loading at all hours. Compact car spaces must be signed for employees only. Bicycle parking should be indicated for shops a, b and d. A parking island must be provided at the end of the 9 space parking row located between the Walmart Store and Shops C. 3. Ditch Company approval will be required prior to final approval. There appears to be no engineering problem with the concept of putting Mail Creek within a box culvert provided sufficient capacity exists and detailed hydraulic analysis is performed. Applicants should provide evidence that 20 foot easement for ditch will be adequate. 4. Additional utility easements will be required. Please see me for details. The site plan should show fire hydrant locations and water main sizes. One hydrant must be located at rear of Walmart Store. 5. The applicants will need to demonstrate the mitigation measures for loss of the Mail Creek wildlife area and existing trees. Applicant should provide a survey of existing trees on the site and their fate. There appears to be a number of significant trees around the existing home on the site that are worth saving but are not considered in the plan. Please clarify. 6. Pads #1 and 4 should be labeled "Drive -up" and Pad #2 should be labeled "standard" restaurants. Please revise. 7. The staff has a number of concerns regarding the landscaping of the site as follows: a. A formal .dstreet along replanting 3Thesestreets shouldbe planted 0O,intervals minimum) be prove 9 all streets between the curb and sidewalk where possible. b. Additional landscape islands should be provided in large parking area in front of the Walmart Store. Parking islands should include at least two trees and shrub plantings. Some of the parking islands appear to be quite small. Parking islands should be at least six feet in width to maintain proper plant growth. c. Foundation plantings should be provided along the frontage of all buildings. Due to the size of the Walmart and theatre buildings, special landscape treatment along their frontage should be provided. d. Additional shrub beds should be introduced along the street frontages. To: Jim Gefroh Re: Arbor PUD Sept. 25, 1985 - Page 3 e. Larger than average trees and evergreens should be used at strategic points of the plan. f. A note should be added to the plan that indicates that all existing trees to be saved will be pruned to City Forestry specifications and shall be protected to City Forestry standards. g. Screening of service areas should be provided. Additional tree and evergreen planting should be provided along the west property line. Overall, the amount and quality of landscaping on the plan appears to be less than what appeared on earlier plans. i think that the quality of the landscaping and open space areas in the earlier plan were considered as a trade-off for the loss of the Mail Creek area. I would strongly encourage the applicant to reevaluate the plan in terms of trying to at least match in quantity and quality of what was approved in the earlier plan. 8. Building pads 2, 3, and 6 appear to be too close to ?Mason Street. The staff would recommend that the applicants reconsider the plan in terms of increasing the building setbacks. The applicants should provide written and graphic information on the appropriateness of the three story office building on Harmony Road in terms of setback and architectural design. 9.- The width of the landscape buffer along College Avenue between pads 2 and 4 should be maintained along other portions of College Avenue. Please revise. 10. The area east of Mason Street appears to be a collection of auto -related uses without much design connection among the buildings other than common parking and circulation . Yet, this p,- oject is being offered as a Community Shopping Center planned as a unit. The staff is concerned that this treatment is not appropriate given that this corner - has been considered as part of the "gateway" to the community. The staff wound recommend that the applicants reevaluate this area in terms of providing a more cohesive planned unit. 11. Parking and building lighting should be indicated on the site plan. 12. Energy conservation measures should be indicated on the site plan. 13. Surrounding 150 information should be indicated on the site plan. 14. Pedestrian connections should be provided between the Walmart Store and the public sidewalks; between pad 5 and the public sidewalks, and between pad 4 and pad 5. The applicants are strongly encouraged to consider the introduction of seating areas, pedestrian plazas, wider sidewalks, and other pedestrian elements along the frontage of the To: Jim Gefroh Re: Arbor PUD Sept. 25, 1985 - Page 4 theatre/shops area and along t he westrtedge psof reabuilding walks 4sho l d be provided around the south sidewalk along the west edge of pad five should be extended north to the edge of the parking area. 15. The staff has some questions and suggestions regarding the architectural treatment of theCenter. he site�aTheubudildgngldesignnofwthe ill be required for all buildings outparcels should utilize ustyles and materials to reinforce the entire project as a planned unit. ored nd rings of the 16. 8 1/2" x 11" PMT reductions of all plans, si size copies ofe the site and site and building elevations, and ten elevations evati ons should be submitted by noon landscaping plan, and building on October 21, 1985. discuss I would recommend we meet as v°snonssto theble pla so reflecting above he above comments. Five copies of the re comments should be submitted to me deadlinesthan followed ifOctober item is to extremely critical that the above be considered at the October meeting of the free Planning call me Zoning ng Board. If you should have any questions, please Sincerel , Joe Frank Acting)Planning Director CCa Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator date: 29 Oct 85 ITEM: deiDartmeny* 137-80D ARBOR PLAZA PUD - FINAL COMMENTS: C J Ul S��A /l� -5 Q L-1 5,"d "V f4viwew-,1 @ SrP ?vvI ekkvI 6,t.p ao L,)I/L d 5-5-o�51yL7 /Vv a 05- 14X � S 7441v�" o C c v vo'l Y VIC,- / / w� ,DP d wt r 1 Y� v C� ?� �/ �(a ✓ woo s y �?aso" �v a� w°''� ah Cal/e��� 4e5s e e 710 es e dD r `avrG{r c, � yia ✓4-, /1vo 0 v // /0 Gam- �. ®-P. / Q �d� a�s�P S S�tvtJl�ree� q �d G _ C16) 4A, c G� ✓o v C, {n� vi o Cd �` s �� �� e �. a �. S �`• �e .P vial 1 i jr/ � ie M E M O R A N D U M Bob Snow Mountain Bell -Engineering 124 W. Magnolia TO: Fort Collins, CO 80521 FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator RE: Subdivision Utility Plans DATE:: October 80, 1985 RECEIVED Nod l 71985 PLANNING ©EPAR T IMEN-, Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for: Arbor Plaza-PUD Please respond by: November 8, 1985 1 M E M O R A N D U M Bob Snow Mountain Bell -Engineering 124 W. Magnolia TO: Fort Collins, CO 80521 FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator RE: Subdivision Utility Plans DATE: October 30, 1985 RE C t t,�r �►{�yt.t �' 1g$ Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for: Arbor Plaza-PUD Please respond by: November 8, 1985 Fort Collins -Loveland Water District South Fort Collins Sanitation District 4700 South College Avenue FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 TELEPHONE 226-3104 — 669-4321 November 5, 1985 City of Fort Collins Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Arbor Plaza PUD ("137-80D) Dear Bonnie: The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District submit. -the Following Comments: Easements will be required for water and sanitary sewer lines not located within public right of way. The fire flow requirements need to be submitted in order for the District to verify water line sizing. Backflow prevention devices will be required on all private fire lines. An easement along the west side of College Avenue and south of Palmer Drive will be required for a future water line extension. The District water line located in the intersection of College Avenue and Harmony Road needs to be shown. The water and sanitary sewer line sizing will be dependant on the above information. Bonnie, the District has had minimal contact with the developer regarding this project. Since -there are a number of items that need to be discussed concerning the water and sewer infra -structure, may I suggest you have them contact us. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Michael DiTullio District [4anager cc: Terry Farr -ill, Systems Engineer MEMORANDUM 'PLAPdh:`� '^'PPARTN: ��i,4T TO: 10c, V S f'/ O Ltd / /� p cl /n It., " Fi'e l / FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator RE: Utility Plans DATE: /Vo✓ Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for AV 6 c9 ✓ P i of Z. Please respond by No v l0f-- Mountain Bell Fort Collins, Colorado November 13, 1985 Drexel, Barrelll & Co. 1700 38th Street Boulder, Colorado 80301 Subject: Review, Arbor Plaza Plan Dear Sir: The city of Fort Collins, planning department has asked that we review the plan for Arbor Plaza Shopping Center for potential problems or additional requests. Mountain Bell has only one main concern in the plans submitted. The area is on sheE�t 4, (Plan & Profile Harmony Road) as noted Mountain Bell has a manhole and conduit system on the south side of Harmony Road. Mountain Bell manholes Eire normally set with 18" - 24" of cover, the adjustment on this cover is only 12" - 18". I recommend a representative of Drexel, Barrell & Company contact this office to set up a field visit to discuss these potential problems. Mountain Bell cable facilities on commercial properties require conduit by owner and contractual agreements for construction charges. This also would be appropriate to discuss at this time. Should you need to set up a meeting or discuss other items pertaining to Mountain Bell in the Fort Collins area, please call Ed Heinze or myself on 224-7471. Yours truly, R.L. Snow Assistant Manager-DSDC Fort Collins rls/do No Text CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPf•:1ENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION November 14, 1935 Fredric J. Hatt.man Gefroh-Hattman Inc. 135 W. Swallow Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Rick, The staff has reviewed the application for final PUD and subdivision plat approval of thE, Arbor Plaza PUD and offers the following comments: 1. The 30' wide easement and the 29' wide easement adjoining the south and west boundaries of the property, respectively, need to be labeled as "utility easements" on both the site plan and plat. Please revise. 2. The Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have a number of concerns and should be contacted regarding this project. 3. The City's Storm Drainage staff have serious problems with the Storm Drainage Report, including the following concerns: a. No calculations or detailed information was provided. b. Three foot ponding depths in parking lot is unacceptable even on a temporary basis. 18" is maximum allowed. c. 25 yealy historic release rate is unacceptable. Two (2) year histor- ic release is maximum without written consent of downstream pro- perty owners that would be adversely affected. I would recommend that your engineers meet with the City's storm drainage staff as soon as possible. 4. The utility plans were submitted a week late and therefore there has not been enough time for staff to review and keep the project on schedule. Therefore, the review by the Planning and Zoning Board will be delayed one month. Also, copies of the subdivision plat and soils report were never submitted for staff review. c DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 5. Width dimensions of all public and private sidewalks should be indi- cated on the site plan. Location of handicapped ramps should be indicated. Pedestrian ramps should be provided at all handicapped parking areas and at pedestrian crossing areas. 6. The entryway treatment of the service drive to Harmony Road should be a standard driveway rather than curb return design. 30' radius on all College Avenue intersections will be required. The note regarding the 55 mph design speed should be deleted from the site plan. Please revise. 7. Any construction occurring on Railroad property must have their approval in writing. Please provide a copy of this document prior to Planning and Zoning Board approval. Ditch Company approval will also be required for any change to existing irrigation lines prior to final approval. A state highway permits will be required for this project. Also, State Highway Department permission will be required to construct the culvert on their property as well as to remove any existing trees or other construction activity prior to final approval. 8. The loading areas at the rear of building C would appear to conflict with the movement of traffic along the drive. Please clarify. The staff questions whether adequate loading areas for semi -trailers have been provided for the Walmart facility. Other larger discount stores in the community appear to require a much larger area. Please provide evidence `o justify the plan design. Employee parking area will need to be signed for such. Please note on site plan. 9. Parking aisles should meet at right angles to the extent possible. There are some areas within the plan that do not meet this criteria and could present some traffic problems. 10. Site gradiny at the Mason and College Avenue intersection will cause problems with sight distance at deceleration lane. Please revise. 11. The staff is currently reviewing the utility plans and phasing schedule for public; improvements and will have comments available when we meet. At such time as a phasing plan is approved, note number 9 on the site plan will need to be updated. 12. All buildings must be designed and constructed considering available fire flow and amendments to the 1982 UBC. Fire hydrants shown at southeast corner of Shops "C" should be relocated to northeast corner of shops "C". 13. Additional dimensions of building envelopes will be required. If the garden shop is covered, it must be within a building envelope. Canopies must be within building envelopes. 14. At their October 28, 1985 meeting the Planning and Zoning Board approved the preliminary plan with staff conditions (see attached) in _.V I .. addition to their own requirement that a suitable landscape plan be provided along College Avenue and Harmony Road in the phase 2 area to be installed with Phase I. These items do not appear to have been addressed in the final plans. The staff will not recommend approval of the final plan until such time as these conditions have been satisfactorily met. 15. The notes regarding the design limitations by Walmart should he excluded from the plan. These are not notes which the Staff will apply to the projects nor are they notes which the City will necessarily agree to. Rather, they might be more appropriately considered as Planning Objectives by the applicants. 16. The title of the plan should be Arbor Plaza PUD Phase 1, recognizing that there are future phases of development. 17. Final architectural elevations of all sides of all buildings within phase 1 should be provided. Elevations should indicate exterior materials and colors. 13. Landscape islands and buffer areas should be dimensioned on the site plan. I would recommend we meet as soon as possible to discuss the above comments. Since this item will not be heard by the Planning and Zoniny Board until their January meeting, revisions (five copies) will not be due until noon on January 3, 1936. Also, a 1/2" x 11" PMT reductions of all plans, ten full size copies of the site plan, buiidiny elevations and landscape plan, and a colored rendering of the site and building elevations should be submitted by noon on January 20, 1936. Signed mylars of the site plan, landscape plan, plat and building elevations and a signed "Site and Landscape Covenants" document should be submitted no later than noon, January 23, 1986. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely Joe Frank Acting Planning Director CC: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator Y!' South Fort Collins Sanitation District MEMO TO: Ms, Kerrie Ashbeck, City of Fort Collins Planner FROM: Mr. Terry W. Farrill, Systems Engineer (7� DATE: March 1, 1995 RE: Arbor Plaza Box Culvert The Fort Collins - Loi/eland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District have reviewed the above mentioned and have no objections. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 226-3104 if you have any questions or require additional information. xc: Mr. Michael D. DiTullio, District Manager Rich Dvorack, TST Engineers M E M O R A N D U M Bob Snow ll _Engineering Mountain B Fno l i a o4rtWCoi llns, CO 80521 TO: FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator RE: Subdivision Utility Plans DATE: November 6, 1984 Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for: ARBOR COMMERCIAL PLAZA - Please respond by: November 16, 1984 - 0K DIVISION OF HIGH%VAYS P.O. Box 850 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850 (303) 353-1232 November 16, 1984 Planning Department City of Ft. Collins P.O. Box 580 Ft. Collins, CC) 80522 Gentlemen: STATE OF COLOKADO 2 1 �ga4 cF � A�TticENT e TAN cy� W / 0 N^f QO lF OF COLO�� Larimer Co., S.H. Arbor Plaza P.U.D. S.W. Cor. of Jct. and 68 DOH File 45100 We have reviewed the Arbor Plaza P.U.D. and Draft Traffic Impact Study and have the following comments: The Traffic: Study does provide a fairly comprehensive analysis of the major issues involving State Highways 287 and 68. However, we take issue with some of the assumptions in the report and question the feasibility of the implementation of some of the proposed solutions. The year 1986 and 2005 "Trip Distribution" estimates east of S.H. 287 on S.H. 68 seem rather low, given the recognized importance of this major intersection of two state highways. With the increase in residential development north of S.H. 68, it would seem reasonable to expect a higher percentage of traffic to the east. This would have important implications for left turn demand at the S.H. 287/68 intersection and could justify a westbound to southbound double left turn lane. 287 S.H. 287 The year 2005 Traffic Projections for S.H. 287 north and south of S.H. 68 are significantly lower than those which would be obtained using our 20 year growth factors, 1.7 south of S.H. 68 and 1.8 to the north. The larger discrepancy on S.H. 287 north of S.H. 68 could be explained by the relief which will be provided when Mason Street diverts traffic from S.H. 287. The "Operations Analysis" assumes that if additional through lanes and turn lanes are in p2_ace by the year 2005, acceptable levels of service will be achieved at the intersections on S.H. 287. It may be physically impossible to widen the highway to accommodate all of the additional lanes due to the right of way which would be required. Even the projected 120-foot total right of way for S.H. 287 would not be adequate. Also, without a commitment of financial responsibility, there is no assurance that the additional lanes will be in place if the right of way is available. The recommendations for double left turn lanes on S.H. 287 at S.H. 68 for northbound and southbound traffic only in the year 2005 seem inconsistent with some of the other heavy projected left turn volumes. There are p.m. left turn volumes approaching 300 for 1986 and 2005 which would also seem to warrant double left turn lanes. In City of Ft. Collins, Planning Dept. November 16, 1984 Page Two The "Signal Progression" analysis assumes that S.H. 68 will function at a lower access category and that 35-45 m.p.h. speed limits will exist on S.H. 68 and S.H. 287 in the future. These highways both have category three designations and it should not be assumed that the category or speed limit will be reduced. A 45 m.p.h. travel speed should be used for S.H. 287 and S.H. 68 east of S.H. 68 in the progression analysis. One of the recommendations of major interest to us is the one which states that a signal not be placed at the new College/Mason intersection and that this access operate as a right -in, right -out, and left -in intersection. We support the location of this access opposite Clubhouse Drive and would: prefer that no signal be installed as long as the S.H. 68 intersection can function at an acceptable level of service. However, the previously mentioned uncertainties regarding improving the S.H. 287/68 intersection capacity may cause the need for a signal at this intersection. The limited left turn intersection could initially be constructed and a signal installed in the future. To accomplish this would require the installation of a raised median on S.H. 287 and an assessment of the impact on businesses and residences on the east side of the highway. The foregoing comments on the Traffic Study point out the need for further coordination on the highway -related impacts of this project. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with the City and developer to achieve a plan which will effectively mitigate those impacts. A development plan for this property was reviewed by this office in 1981. At that time, we commented on the need for a traffic study, suggested the improvement of Harmony Road west of S.H. 287, recommended the clear identification of the additional 10 feet of right of way along S.H. 287, asked for a drainage study, and noted the need for an Access Permit to construct the Mason Street access. These comments remain applicable and the only change would involve the Access Permit. Application for this permit is now made directly to the City. Thank you for the opportunity to review this P.U.D. Please keep us informed of any future meetings in which our participation would be useful. i,7FR: mbc cc: A. Chotvacs D. Yost Area Foreman File: Crier -Jacobson Very truly yours, ALBERT CHOTVACS DISTRIC NGINEER '-� William F. Reis/beck 'District Pre -Construction Engineer CONCEU ''UAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS D' . . 1 .. Arhnr Pla7a ' 1 amended APPLICANT: Kroh Brothers, 5690 DTC Boulevard. Englewood, CO 80111 LAND USE DATA: 165,550 snuare foot shonninq center on 20 acres located - on the southwest corner of Harmonv Road and College Avenue. COMMENTS: 1. Water and Sewer service will be provided be District. Applicant should coordinated design with them. 2. Design for Harmony Road is finished. Plans should reflect this design. 3. Traffic Impact Study will need to be updated. 4. Trees which can be saved, should be saved. I would recommend you contact City Arborist, Tim Buchanan, for assistance on this matter. 5. Building elevations are going to be critical t& the overal 1 aesthetic value. 6. The staff has some serious questions regarding the overall appearance of the plan including: A. Reduction of large open space areas in parking lot from the approved plan B. Elimination of landscaping in front of buildings from the approved plan. C. Design of fast-food restaurant pads in terms of circulation, landscaping, and setbacks. D. Setback, building design, and landscaping from Harmony Road. E. Pedestrian circulation needs to be improved. 7. Phasing of street improvements needs to be addressed at preliminary plan stage. 8. Need to address "joint parking" opportunities. 9. Traffic Study should address current land uses or shown on the plans. ` 6 Sept 85 lies--kartment: __..—�.fet'_ 1.. 1 .. �. �_.� _� .._�.��.H �.. . _s ✓{• �. __ .l. i .. .�.r.J� _n �±�. '_�;Ltir-.?_�.ii?.: .:tiY.'_ ITEM: #137-80C ARBOR PLAZA PUD - AMENDED PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: IX.54P OJ w� ,,,x ,� Q M E M 0 R A N 0 U M FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator RE.: Subdivision Utility Plans DATE: September 5, 1985 Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for: The Arbor Please respond by: September 20, 1985 /,/o .: 5av1yE-A17- CITY OFF FORT COLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION September 24, 1985 Jim Gef roh Gef roh-Hattman Inc. 135 W. Swallow Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dear Jim, The staff has reviewed the application for preliminary approval of the Arbor PUD and offers the following comments: 1. The phasing and funding of public improvements will need to be detailed and agreed upon prior to final approval. The design of Harmony and College will require extensive discussions. The improvements shown at the Harmony/College Avenue intersection are quite extensive. Approval of the preliminary plans will not constitute approval of the street designs as shown. All curb cuts to be concrete to property line. The applicants should provide information that shows that the westerly curb cut to Harmony Road will work in terms of the design of the railroad crossing. Any work done in ROW of railroad must have Railroad Company permission. The radii of the curb returns on Harmony and College should be dimensioned. 20 foot radii will be required on curb returns on Mason Street. The ROW as indicated on the site plan appears to include Wickes Lumber. Are they dedicating additional ROW with this project? Please indicate existing ROW and future ROW at time of development of the site. The property line of the site appears to extend into the State ROW at the NE corner of the project . Please clarify. A State Access Permit will be required for both Harmony Road and College Avenue accessways. All sidewalks should be designed to City standards. The distance between the sidewalk and the curb should be indicated on the site plan. 2. The layout of parking circulation for the large parking area in front of Walmart appears to be confusing and should be reevaluated. All parking should be dimensioned. 20 foot aisle widths are permitted for one way traffic only. Please revise. Availability of stacking at OFFICE OF COMMUNITY 300 LaPorte Ave. - P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins. Colorado 80522 - (303)221-6750 r1GlCI nnhAC--T nn wow •ir^• r�n�r�