HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRCLE K PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-07-31CITY OF FORT COLLINS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
June 17, 1986
Linda Ripley or Ed Zdenek
ZVFK Architects/Planners
11 Old Town Square, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Dear Linda and Ed:
Staff has reviewed your submittal for Circle K PUD, Preliminary and Final
and offers the following comments:
1. All signs must comply with the sign code. The sign system shown on the
building elevations totals 529.5 square feet which greatly exceeds the sign
allowance and will not be allowed. The total sign allowance for this site
is 161.08 sq. ft. for Taft Hill and 146.52 sq. ft. for W. Elizabeth - 307.6
sq. ft. total. The site signs (free standing) in addition to building signs
and canopy signs must come from this total. Colored banding is considered
signage.
2. There must be a designated motorcycle parking space.
3. Shared access points with the Terraces PUD must be dedicated access
easements.
4. Is there to be a canopy over the gas pumps? The Plan needs to be
labeled, if this is the case. Canopy height must provide 13'6" clearance,
and should be designed to be non -obtrusive. We need to see elevations.
5. There must be a fire hydrant within 400 feet of the building on the
north side of Elizabeth and west of Taft Hill.
6. The north driveway must line up with the driveway across the access
aisle.
7. A seven (7) foot walk is required along Elizabeth if attached. Ramps
must be designed to City standards.
OFFICE OI COMMUNITY 300 LaPorte Ave. P.O. Box 580�• Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 (303) 221-6750
DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING DIVISION
Circle K PUD
Paget
8. Underground tanks are not allowed in easements. The plat needs to be
revised. Gasoline tankers must be able to fill underground tanks on the
property.
9. The project will not achieve adequate points on the locational point
chart for Auto -related and Roadside Commercial uses, standing alone. the
only way it will achieve 50% of the possible points is to fully address the
issues of being a "functional part of a center", or addressing energy con-
servation as an issue in the locational point chart. The "functional part
of a center" clause has been interpreted in the past to not only address
circulation, access, and parking, but also architectural design and overall
project appearance.
If the applicant addresses joint access, and architectural compatibility to
create an impression of being a part of the overall center (the Terraces),
staff can support awarding points for being part of a planned center, and
for being located on a site of two acres or more. This would give the 50%
required on the locational point chart.
At the current time, the applicant for the Terraces project is proposing
architecture similar to that used at Riverside Junction Shopping Center,
and Park Central Shopping Center. The materials proposed are decorative
block, with a metal roof and metal facia.
The proposed project does not fit with the architecture proposed for the
Terraces, and therefore staff does not feel it can be treated as function-
ally part of a center. It should be noted as well, that one of the All
Development Criteria (#2) requires that the development be compatible with
and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and neighborhood,
relative to architectural design; scale, bulk and building height; identity
and historical character; disposition and orientation of buildings on the
lot; and visual integrity. Staff does not feel the building achieves this
as proposed.
10. Recalculate detention release rates and detention volume using the
gross area. The adjacent street surface must be accounted for with each
development. Please make orifice detail more specific to the curb opening -
not enough information on the plans to build a unique structure now. The
city will required pond volume cross sections and key drainage system veri-
fication prior to C.O. release:
A) Orifice installed per plan at correct elevation.
B) Surveyed cross sections and calculations verifying detention
volume.
C) Cover letter by Professional Engineer with seal.
11. The city is not responsible for landscaping in the street right-of-way.
12. Existing trees and shrubs should be saved. Adjust grading plan if nec-
essary. All existing major vegetation should be shown on the plan.
Circle K PUD
P a g e 3
13. Staff is concerned with the appearance of the north and west facades of
the store, from the adjacent project. This concern should be addressed by
the applicant by architectural treatment, or by landscaping (climbing
vines, espalier?).
14. The islands of plantings at the base of the pole signs should be
expanded to the west and north, to provide screening of the parking areas
(some evergreen shrubs would help with the screening.)
This is the extent of staff's comments at this time. Please contact me if
you have questions, or would like to set up a meeting to discuss these con-
cerns.
Revisions are due July 9, 1986. PMT's. colored renderings, and 10 blueprint
copies for the P&Z Board are due July 18. Final documents are due July 24.
Sincerely,
-
Bob Wilkinson
City Planner
CC: Tom Peterson, Planning Director
Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
fir. -
1
1986
M E M O R A N D U M
Bob Snow
Mountain Bell-Eegtnee ring
T0: ' � 4 W Magnolia
ort Collins, CO 80521
FROM: Bonnie Tripoli, Development Coordinator
RE: Subdivision Utility Plans
DATE: June 6, 1986
Submitted for your review and comment are utility plans for:
Circle K PUD
Please respond by:
June, 1986
11's
i 7
6 Jun 86 4
r memoo
ITEM:
#43-86A- CIRCLE K PUD - Preliminary & Final
COM PtENI ! S:
,5