Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDELLENBACH SUBARU - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2008-05-29Commute Planning and Environmental t,, J� ces Planning Department Citv of Fort Collins April 22, 1994 Butch Stockover 1849 Ramsgate Court Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Butch, Staff has reviewed your documents for the Detail Center that were submitted on March 31, 1994, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This site is part of Lot 3 of the Replat of the Swallow Subdivision that is on record in the City. It is not necessary to replat this property unless additional utility, drainage, and/or public access easements (other than what are on the existing plat) are required for this use. If additional easements are necessary, then a replat could be done or deeds of dedication (certified by an attorney) could be prepared, approved, and recorded. 2. The access point into the site from West Swallow Road should be at 90 degrees to the street. 3. Public Service Company has stated that the utility easements adjacent to Swallow Road and McClelland Drive need to be wide enough such that the distance from the back of the sidewalks to the rear line of the easement is 13' wide. No trees are to be planted within 4' of gas mains. 4. A copy of the comments received from U.S. West is attached to this letter. 5. The Water/Wastewater Department has indicated that their comments are on a red -lined utility plan that has been forwarded to your engineer. Please contact Roger Buffington if you have any questions about water and sanitary sewer services. Roger can be reached at 221-6681. 6. The dimensions of the parking stalls must be indicated on the Site Plan. The building setbacks from the property lines must also be indicated on the Site Plan. 7. A copy of the comments received from the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. Please contact Sharon Getz if you have questions about the Building Code requirements. Her telephone number is on the comment sheet. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 380 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 1-111-6750 Planning and Environmental `'-rvices Current City of Fort Collins November 3, 1998 Carr Bieker The Architects Studio 151 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Carr, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the DELLENBACH SUBARU, Project Development Plan (PDP) development proposal that was submitted to the City on September 25, 1998, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This development proposal, being in the C - Commercial Zoning District, is identified as a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review under the City's Land Use Code (LUC). Vehicle sales and leasing establishments with outdoor storage are permitted uses subject to a Type II review in the District. 2. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Provide handicapped ramp at the West Swallow Road entrance. b. This site is not in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and, therefore, the building signage should not be shown at all on the building elevations. The P & Z Board has no authority to review and comment on the locations and content of the building signage. C. The City would prefer to see the areas marked "turf' on the Landscape Plan to be sodded instead of seeded. This should be noted on the plan. d. Will there be any type of border (raised concrete, etc.) between the asphalt and the turf areas to prevent autos from driving across or parking on the grass? e. Autos cannot be parked in the area between West Swallow Road and the building. Displayed vehicles on the north side of the building cannot be in the street right-of-way. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 f. A detail and elevation of the trash enclosure should be provided and included on one of the plans (Building Elevations, Site, or Landscape) g. The areas below the operable windows and between the columns on the north elevation of the Building Elevations Plan are not service bay doors,,,, are they? Please contact Peter, Gary, or Jenny at 221-6760 if you have questions about these comments. 3. Susan Peterson of U. S. West stated that any relocations of U. S. West facilities required by this project will be paid by the developer. Please contact her for conduit specifications for service to the new/remodeled building. She can be reached at 970-224-7473. 4. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company offered the following comments: a. Any rerouting, reinforcement, etc. of PSC gas lines caused by this development will be at the developer's expense. b. No trees are to be planted within 4' of the IP gas line. This is a "high" pressure line, so this requirement (restriction) is critical. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,000 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire hydrant. b. Provide fire hydrants on 600' centers along the proposed fire lane. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 6. A copy of the comments received from Sharon Getz of the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 7. Rob Irish of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: KVA, relocating of all electric facilities, and any system modifications will be at the owner's expense. The applicant will need to complete a Commercial Service Form. 0 *40 C. The applicant will need to coordinate the transformer location and relocation of existing equipment. d. Any unpaid development charges on the new parking lot at the southeast corner of West Swallow Road and McClelland Drive will also be due at this time. Please contact Rob, at 221-6700, if you have questions about these comments. 8. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) states that the project will bring all adjacent sidewalks up to current standards. This needs to include a new detached walk along the West Swallow Road frontage. b. The TIS states that the Dellenbach Subaru project will provide ADA approved handicapped ramps adjacent to their site. C. The TIS indicates that the existing transit stop may have to be relocated. The applicant will have to discuss this possibility with GayLene Rossiter of Transfort. She can be reached at 221-6620. If the frontage road is vacated then the sidewalk along South College Avenue will need to be widened to 10' to allow for bicycle traffic to share the walk (bicycles currently use the frontage road). Please see the red - lined copy of a PDP Site Plan, with details and additional comments, that is being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments. 9. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Red -lined copies of plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. 10. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. Red -lined copies of plans and reports, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. 11. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. Overall utility plans show water service on the east side of the building and the Landscape Plan shows the water service on the north side of the building. Coordinate the Landscape Plan and the civil engineering plan. Will the existing sanitary sewer service be used or abandoned? Define this on the overall utility plan set. C. Show all water and sanitary sewer mains and services on the Landscape Plan and provide the required separation distances between plant materials and utility lines. d. Provide a 5' minimum separation between the 12" water main and the curb flowline along the east edge of the parking lot. e. Provide a sanitary sewer service detail with the next submittal. g. Red -lined copies of plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Roger, at 221-6681, if you have questions about these comments. 12. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department offered the following comments: The proposed access location on South College Avenue meets the approved South College Access Plan. However, the design of the new right-in/right-out on College does not meet the Code. b. Need to see the south end of the frontage road with these plans. Please contact Eric, at 224-6062, if you have questions about these comments. 13. Matt Baker of the Engineering Department offered the following comments: a. There will not be oversizing fees with this project, since the change of use is less intensive. b. The acceleration lane is for Dellenbach only. C. There are concerns about the design of the deceleration lane. It must meet the City and CDOT specifications. d. The sidewalk must be T wide. The City's oversizing department will pay for 2.5' of the width of the walk. Please contact Matt, at 224-6108, if you have questions about these comments. %W ti/ The following comments and concerns were expressed at the Staff Review meeting on October 28th: Transportation Planning 14. Are the lots (or a portion of) to be gated for security at night? 15. The existing transit stop adjacent to this site on South College Avenue should be upgraded to include a shelter, if one does not already exist. Stormwater Utility 16. The proposed finish floor elevations for the buildings on this site are too low and, therefore, a floodplain use permit will be required. 17. The majority of the surface of the site is already impervious. This proposed new development will need to look at the surface storm drainage patterns and how they may change from the existing. Planning 18. The timing for moving and relocating some of the trees on -site is critical. 19. There is a need to discuss the possible vacation of the existing frontage road and effects on the potential streetscape along South College Avenue at a weekly transportation coordination meeting. 20. The overall Lighting Photometric Plan shows an average foot candle value of 9.63 for the site. However, it would appear that the majority of the site [far) exceeds the maximum allowance of 10 foot candles as set forth in Section 3.2.4(D)(7) of the LUCK. This section of the Code defines maximum on -site lighting levels, not an overall site average. There are numerous "hot spots" that range from 10.2 to 69.1 foot candles. The aforementioned section of the Code also states that the maximum lighting level allowed for loading and unloading platforms is 20 foot candles. The "hot spots" in the proposed loading/unloading area range from 41.5 to 68.0 foot candles. Section 3.2.4(D)(8) of the LUC states that lighting levels measured 20' beyond the property line adjacent to public rights -of way shall not exceed 0.1 foot candle as a direct result of the on -site lighting for the development. There are "hot spots" along the frontage road ranging from 0.11 to 0.23 foot candles and "hot spots" along West Swallow Road ranging from 0.12 to 2.37 foot candles, all exceeding the Code requirement. Is this a result of combined on -site and street lighting or a result of just on -site lighting for the auto dealership? A letter of request for consideration of an alternative lighting plan under the Alternative compliance section of the Code [Section 3.2.4(E)] has been submitted to the City for review. The request references the recent Spradley Barr Auto Dealership as an example of an alternative lighting plan that the City found acceptable. In that instance, the applicant presented a plan that incorporated a lighting system that ensured no off -site light spillage, absolute down directional cutoffs on the light fixtures, and a computerized system that progressively shuts down the system at certain times after dark so that the effect of the lighting eventually is minimized and negated at night. The mere comparison of one auto dealership to another, without specific information about the system for the Dellenbach Dealership, is not sufficient justification for the acceptance of the alternative compliance request. 21. The vehicle use areas must be adequately screened as per Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the. Enaineerina 22. The proposed fire access lane on the Site Plan needs an access to be dedicated on the subdivision plat. 23. There needs to be a landscaped strip between the tier of 13 visitor parking spaces and the auto display spaces south of the building. 24. There are issues surrounding the request to vacate the frontage road. Some issues involve the bicycle lanes, access to the area from South College Avenue, and the sidewalk width for multi -uses. Does the midpoint access from South College Avenue have to occur? 25. The minimum 50' setback requirement for on -site parking spaces from the street may necessitate the loss of the first two spaces south of West Swallow Road on the west side of the site. 26. Repair or replace damaged sidewalk along West Swallow Road. This may include detaching the sidewalk. Water/Wastewater 27. There is existing water and sanitary sewer mains in the frontage road. There may be some conflicts with the proposed trees and shrubs. �"/ This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The amount of time spent on revisions is up to the applicant. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an opening on the agenda. Red -lined copies of plans and reports, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please return all documents red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Av�&� Steve Olt Project Planner cc: i1P Stormwater Utility Zoning Water & Wastewater Traffic Operations Transportation Planning Advance Planning McNutt & Associates Stewart & Associates Project File REVISION COMMENT SHE DATE: February 18, 1999 TO: Trans. Planning PROJECT: #50-98 Dellenbach Subaru — PDP — Type II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 dNo Comment afl l' O� 00U -d Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Date: CEM HERE IP YOU M M RECEIVE 00Fffi5 OF REVISIONS _— —O�c U _ �Y Redline O�Y V REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 18, 1999 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: #50-98 Dellenbach Subaru -PDP- Type II PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Mark McCallum All comments must be received no later than the staff review meeting: No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) All Plans Included: 1. Utility Plan Sheets 2. Site Plan 3. Landscape Plan General Comments: 0 See redline comments on all sheets of the utility, site, and landscape plans. More specific comments will be mentioned below. Utility Plan Comments: Cover Sheet; Sheet 1 of 10: 0 Minor revision to General Notes. Boundary Map; Sheet 2 of 10: • Who owns the Fronta*e Road R.O.W.? Is it the City or the State? If it is the State, the vacation of R.O.W. will have to be done to their requirements. However, if it is the City, the vacation can be processed through the Engineering Department. 0 The vacation of the Frontage Road and the dedication of the R.O.W. for the Frontage Road can be done by separate document. I will include copies of what is required for submittal and how the process functions. O Isa fire access easement still required by PFA? Utility and Grading Plan; Sheet 4 of 10: O The portion of the roadway to be vacated should be processed through the engineering department. • In regard to the right turn -lane, the following comments were made: 0 o The storage length should be based on the long-term peak hour volumes. If the long- term peak hour volume is below 30 vph than 25 feet of storage is adequate; If the turning vph is between 30 and 60 than 40 feet of storage is required; If the turning vph is between 60 and 100 than 50 feet of storage is required. o The access will need to be approved by the State (CDOT). o Show the spot elevations as depict in the City Street Design Manual as D-18 or D- 19. O The Frontage Road solution to shift the R.O.W. line to the west has caused a minor conflict with a 12" water main. Before a decision is made from Engineering, I would like to hear what Roger Buffington from Water/ Waste water has to say about the conflict. Is the Frontage Road currently28 feet wide FL -FL? If so, it does not comply with the local street roadway width of 30 feet or section 1.02.10 of the City Street Design Manual. However, it is my opinion that it is adequate based on the existing roadway width to the south (in front of the bank). I recommend the applicant submit a variance requesting a 28-foot street as opposed to local street width of 30 feet. This letter should be addressed to the City Engineer, Cam McNair, and should explain why this roadway is equal to or better than the required 30-foot road. The letter should be submitted to the development review engineer at anytime. Please, call me at 221-6605 if there are any questions. The project is replacing sidewalk along the Frontage Road from one access all the way to the other access. It is probably appropriate to detach the sidewalk and provide a parkway stripe. New Turn Lane on College; Sheet 5 of 10: 0 The cross -sections for the right tum-lane should provide information for the entire south bound section of College Avenue (see redlines) per 1.02.03.14(d) of the City Street Design Manual. 0 The tlowline for the right tum-lane must maintain the minimum 0.4 % slope requirement per 1.02.03.09(g) if the City Street Design Manual. The Frontage Road should not have outflow curb and gutter. The roadway should maintain a typical cross-section with a crown. Please show typical cross-section. Sidewalk Ramps at College and Swallow; Sheet 6 of 10: 0 Note: Make sure the access ramps shown are built with landscaping on either side of the wings. Otherwise the access ramps will not meet ADA requirements. 0 The corner radius at Swallow Road and College Avenue should be 25 feet. Detail Sheet; Sheet 9 of 10: 0 The typical trench detail is no longer referenced in the City Street Design Manual. The detail should be replaced with a note that references the new "Street Repair and Reconstruction Standards and Guidelines". Site Plan: 0 See redlined comments. Date:*�' Signatures Please send copies of marked revisions Plat _� Site Utility X Landscape ;m City of Fort Collins 8. Is the building to be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system? If not, then the entire building, must be within the maximum of 150' distance for emergency access to all exterior points on the building. There must also be a 20' wide unobstructed driveway around the building. The entry drive is only about 150 wide and the driveway on the north and west sides of the building is only 12' wide. This is not adequate. Questions about fire prevention and emergency access should be directed to Mike Pretz of the Poudre Fire Authority. Mike can be reached at 221-6570. The utility plans are incomplete as submitted. As a minimum, dimensions are needed throughout the plans. An erosion control plan.is required and was not submitted. The detention area needs to be verified. Please contact Mike Herzig or Kerrie Ashbeck of the Engineering Department if you have questions about these comments. They Can be reached at 221-6750. 10. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary pavement proposed on this site. How are the autos going to enter and exit your building? Is the amount of parking shown on the Site Plan necessary for your business? How is the handicapped access parking space shown on the north side of your building going to work? 11. The Landscape Plan needs lots of work. It is difficult to read the plan and understand what is where. Russian Olive trees are not an acceptable tree in the City of Fort Collins. There is a City -approved street tree list available from the City Forester or the Planning Department. There should be street trees along McClelland Drive, and you could possibly incorporate them into earth berms to provide a better visual buffer from the street. 12. The whole drawing is difficult to read and understand. The line weight differentation is not good, making it hard to know what is what. 13. The surrounding land uses must be identified on the Site Plan, for 150' in all directions. 14. An Air Pollution Emissions Notification (APENS) may need to be filed with the State Department of Health if there is going to be a spray booth. Check with Myrna Hansen of the Larimer County Environmental Health Department at 498-6789. 15. Bicycle racks should be provided for this use. 16. The plans are not complete enough for final approval without significant conditions relating primarily to utilities. It is recommended that this proposal continue as a preliminary request only. Commt66y Planning and Environmental%Orvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins March 17, 1999 Carr Bieker The Architects Studio 151 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Carr, Staff has reviewed your revisions for the DELLENBACH SUBARU, Project Development Plan (PDP) development proposal that were submitted to the City on February 17, 1999, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This development proposal, being in the C - Commercial Zoning District, is identified as a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review under the City's Land Use Code (LUC). Vehicle sales and leasing establishments with outdoor storage are permitted uses subject to a Type II review in the District. 2. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. It appears that the new freestanding Subaru sign is not entirely on the lot. What is being classified as the frontage road area? Is it an easement or has it been made part of the lot? The Site Plan is unclear about this issue. b. The ground sign location is dictated by the City's sign Code, not this PDP. P & Z Board has no authority to review and comment on the locations and content of the ground signage. Please remove the sign from the Site Plan. C. The topography lines should be removed from the FINAL Site Plan when it is submitted. d. Clearly label lots and lot lines on the Site Plan. e. Are both parking spaces on either side of the handicapped ramp, on the south side of the building, proposed to be handicapped spaces? Please note as such on the Site Plan. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 410 2020 f. Can the bus stop be made to be similar to the new bus pull -in area in front of Home Depot? It would ease some traffic back-up when the busses are loading and unloading. g. Show distances from the building envelope to the property lines. h. Please see the circled area on Sheet SP-1 (forwarded to the applicant). Is the highlighted crosswalk to be painted or a patterned concrete? Please specify on the plans. j. Add a street tree in the area that is highlighted on Sheet LP-2 (forwarded to the applicant). Please contact Peter, Gary, or Jenny at 221-6760 if you have questions about these comments. 3. A copy of the comments received from Susan Peterson of U. S. West is attached to this letter. 4. Bruce Vogel of the Light & Power Department stated that any relocation existing electric facilities, and any system modifications, will be at the owner's expense (oval vault & transformer on Swallow Road). 5. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Red -lined copies of plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Mark, at 221- 6750, if you have questions about his comments. 6. A copy of the comments received from Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. Red -lined copies of plans and reports, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Basil, at 221- 6035, if you have questions about his comments. 7. A copy of the comments received from Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this letter. Red -lined copies of plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Roger, at 221-6681, if you have questions about his comments. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the Staff Review meeting on March 10th: Stormwater Utility 8. There may be some drainage problems along South College Avenue associated with this development. %✓ V' 9. This round of revisions is the first time that the City is seeing the South College Avenue profiles. The applicant will need to provide proof that the drainage will work in this area. 10. As street right-of-way along the Frontage Road on the west side of South College Avenue is being vacated, a portion of the existing right-of-way must be retained for a drainage easement. Planning 11. The overall Lighting Photometric Plan shows an average foot candle value of 9.01 for the site. However, it would appear that the majority of the site [far] exceeds the maximum allowance of 10 foot candles as set forth in Section 3.2.4(D)(7) of the LL C. This section of the Code defines maximum on -site lighting levels, not an overall site average. There are numerous "hot spots" that range from 10.1 to 68.9 foot candles. The aforementioned section of the Code also states that the maximum lighting level allowed for loading and unloading platforms is 20 foot candles. The "hot spots" in the proposed loading/unloading area range from 25.1 to 68.9 foot candles. Section 3.2.4(D)(8) of the LUC states that lighting levels measured 20' beyond the property line adjacent to public rights -of way shall not exceed 0.1 foot candle as a direct result of the on -site lighting for the development. There are "hot spots" along the Frontage Road ranging from 0.09 to 2.98 foot candles and "hot spots" along West Swallow Road ranging from 0.00 to 4.31 foot candles, all exceeding the Code requirement. Is this a result of combined on -site and street lighting or a result of just on -site lighting for the auto dealership? A letter of request for consideration of an alternative lighting plan under the Alternative Compliance section of the Code [Section 3.2.4(E)] has been submitted to the City for review. This section states: To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a lighting plan which complies with the standards of this Section. In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall consider the extent to which the proposed design protects natural areas from light intrusion, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access, and demonstrates innovative design and use of fixtures or other elements. The request references the recent Spradley Barr Auto Dealership as an example of an alternative lighting plan that the City found acceptable. In that instance, the applicant presented a plan that incorporated a lighting system that ensured no off -site light spillage, absolute down directional cutoffs on the light fixtures, and a computerized system that progressively shuts down the system at certain times after dark so that the effect of the lighting eventually is minimized and negated at night. How does this development plan demonstrate that it passes the "equally well or better than would a lighting plan which complies with the standards of this Section" test? Perhaps a meeting to discuss this issue would be appropriate. 12. The vehicle use areas must be adequately screened as per Section 3.2. 1 (E)(4)(b) of the IU_Q. The Landscape Plan dated 2/17/99 does not appear to comply with this requirement. Engineerina 13. Who owns the right-of-way for the existing Frontage Road, the City or the State? The applicant is responsible for doing the research on this question and providing verification about ownership. The State mU own the right-of-way. The status of ownership must be determined before this item goes to public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board for a land use decision. 14. The State has to approve the location of the access from South College Avenue and the associated geometrics. 15. Additional right-of-way for the Frontage Road must be dedicated, and could be done by separate document. 16. Is a fire access easement needed on this site? Please check with Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority about this. He can be reached at 221-6570. 17. The vehicle storage length from South College Avenue into the site may not be adequate. 18. The street improvements must meet the City's new design standards. The proposed 28' wide Frontage Road does not meet the standards. A typical cross- section must be provided and a request for a variance to the standards, from the applicant, is required. 19. The sidewalk along the Frontage Road should be detached. 20. The cross -sections as provided to date are not good. M 21. There is a water line along the Frontage Road. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department must review and determine the impacts of this development on that line. Water/Wastewater 22. There is existing water and sanitary sewer mains in the Frontage Road. There may be some conflicts with the proposed trees and shrubs. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The amount of time spent on revisions is up to the applicant. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an opening on the agenda. Red -lined copies of plans and reports, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please return all documents red -lined by City staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Steve Olt Project Planner cc: Engineering Stormwater Utility Zoning Water & Wastewater Transportation Planning McNutt & Associates Stewart & Associates Project File Transpol.otion Services V40 Engineering Department City of Fort Collins April 22, 1999 Carr Bieker The Architects' Studio 151 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. Bicker: City Staff has reviewed the conceptual design for the relocation of the Frontage Road at Dellenbach Subaru submitted April 15, 1999. In our previous meeting we discussed the option of vacating the entire length of the Frontage Road between Swallow Road and Foothills Parkway if and only if the connection was designed to function like a street. Conceptually, the location of the connection is acceptable; however, the following is a list of comments gathered from City Staff: I . At this point, City Staff would like to review a detailed design that accommodates a 24-foot travel way with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. 2. The existing 24-foot public access easement for this project will actually need to be increased to accommodate the additional curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. Before City Staff restricts the access easement to a set number, I recommend that you redesign the site as you see fit. 3. The Planning Department would like to see a detached sidewalk with parkway trees. There will be additional comments at the time the project is resubmitted. 4. The public access easement straddles the property line. Please contact the property owner to the west and keep them involved with the design of this project. Any construction required on the adjacent property owner's land would require that a temporary construction easement be agreed upon between property owners. 5. The access at Foothills Parkway needs to be reconstructed along with the pavement for the public access. City Staff understands that the proposed plan is conceptual and we can understand your desire to see if it is a viable option for your client. If you should elect to proceed with this alternative layout, City Staff will need to see a complete design of the proposed relocation that addresses the comments mentioned above. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 n C'i At this point, I recommend that you submit a plan showing the complete design. Please call me at 221-6605 to determine the number of plans needed in the resubmittal or if you have any other questions. Sincere l�� > -�2%� cC21um _ Mazk McCallum Civil Engineer Cc; Eric Bracke Dave Stringer Cam McNair Kathleen Reavis Steve Olt Tess Jones Phil Robinson it REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: June 15, 1999 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: #50-98 Dellenbach Subaru —PDP- Type 2 (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, July 7, 1999 ♦ See redlined comments on all sheets of the utility plans, site plan, and plat Utility Plan Comments ♦ The development shall be responsible to provide access ramps at the southeast corner of Swallow Road, College Avenue, and frontage road intersection. See the site and utility plan for more details. ♦ Please show access ramps at driveways. Site Plan Comments ♦ The development shall be responsible to provide access ramps at the southeast corner of Swallow Road, College Avenue, and frontage road intersection. See the site and utility plan for more details. ♦ As a result of tying in the two sites the applicant will need to submit a minor amendment to the Chevrolet property P.U.D. ♦ See plat for the correct legal description. Date: 6 Signature; 7 l� Pleases nd copies of marked revisions Plat Site Utility ZLandscape NO COMMENTS — SUBMIT MYLARS Q City of Fort Collins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: June 15, 1999 TO: Trans. Planning PROJECT: #50-98 Dellenbach Subaru - PDP — Type'2 (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, July 7,1999 No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) 64 Z)l fLud ALA �wlc� &&- Date: 7 CM HERE IF YOUyFM TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _ Plat c Report Other _Utility _ Redline My— Commutlry Planning and Environmental yrlllvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins July 14, 1999 Carr Bieker The Architects Studio 151 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Carr, Staff has reviewed your revisions for the DELLENBACH SUBARU, Project Development Plan (PDP) development proposal that were submitted to the City on June 16, 1999, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This development proposal, being in the C - Commercial Zoning District, is identified as a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review under the City's Land Use Code (LUC). Vehicle sales and leasing establishments with outdoor storage are permitted uses subject to a Type II review in the District. 2. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. Add patterned crosswalk (preferred) or painted crosswalk at entrance the entrance from the Frontage Road and the entrance from West Swallow Road. b. Is there any building -mounted lighting proposed? If yes, please show the light fixtures on the building elevations, with type and source. The BUILDING LIGHTING MUST BE DOWN DIRECTIONAL and properly shielded to prevent glare and spillage. Please contact Gary or Jenny, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 3. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. The project should have a direct pedestrian from the building entrance to West Swallow Road. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 fir' 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 be aware of the followina dates and deadlines to assure your ability to stay on schedule for the May 23, 1994 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: Plan revisions are due by 5:00 p.m. on May 5, 1994. Please contact me for the number of folded revisions required for each document. PMT's, renderings, and a folded copies of final revisions (for the Planning and Zoning Board packets) are due by 3:00 p.m. on May 16, 1994. Please contact me at 221-6750 if you have 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. S ' cerely, e Vol Olt Project Planner xc: Ron Phillips Kerrie Ashbeck Advance Planning Stormwater Utility Transportation Parks & Recreation file/Project Planner b. Enhanced pedestrian crossings are needed to the north across West Swallow Road and to the east across the Frontage Road to South College Avenue. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments. 4. Bruce Vogel of the Light & Power Department stated that any relocation existing electric facilities, and any system modifications, will be at the owner's expense (this includes an oval vault and transformer, plus all related cable and fittings). 5. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Red -lined copies of plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Mark, at 221- 6750, if you have questions about his comments. 6. Basil Hamdan of the Stormwater Utility stated that there is a minor typo on the utility plan cover sheet. Please correct the error. The mylars for this project will be accepted with the Final Compliance submittal. Red -lined copies of plans and reports, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Basil, at 221-6035, if you have questions about his comments. 7. Jeff Hill of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. Coordinate the landscape design with the civil design and maintain the required landscape/utility separation distances on the Landscape Plan. b. Show locations of existing curb stops and meter pits on the overall utility plan. C. Add a note to the utility plans stating that The developer must contact City Utilities 48 hours prior to water service abandonment. d. Red -lined copies of plans, with additional comments, are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Jeff, at 221-6681, if you have questions about these comments. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the Staff Review meeting on July 7th: Transportation Planning (Kathleen Reavis) 8. Please address the pedestrian crossings at the Frontage Road and South College Avenue. Pedestrian improvements are needed to the north and east of this site. 9. There appears to be no direct pedestrian access from West Swallow Road to the front entry of this project. It would be better to have an entrance to the building from West Swallow Road. Planning 10. The overall Lighting Photometric Plan shows an average foot candle value of 7.02 for the site. The overall site lighting exceeds the maximum allowance of 10 foot candles and lighting levels measured 20' beyond the property line adjacent to public rights -of way not exceeding 0.1 foot candle as a direct result of the on -site lighting for the development, as set forth in Sections 3.2.4(D)(7) and (8) of the LUC. A letter of request for consideration of an alternative lighting plan under the Alternative Compliance section of the Code [Section 3.2.4(E)] has been submitted to the City for review. Staff will be recommending that the Board approve the alternative lighting plan. 11. The vehicle use areas must be adequately screened as per Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b) of the LUC. The Landscape Plan dated 6/15/99 does not appear to comply with this requirement. The Tammy Junipers in the planting bed along the Frontage Road are sufficient in height and opacity. The Blue Mist Spirea are sufficient in the winter in height and opacity. The rest of the materials (Potentilla, Hughes Juniper, Wilton Carpet Juniper, Snow in Summer) are not tall enough to meet the 30" minimum height requirement. The necessary 75% opacity and 70% of the length of the parking area requirement is not being met. 12. A minor amendment to the existing Dellenbach Motors PUD is needed for the new islands at the driveway connection between the two sites (southwest corner of this current development request). Engineering 13. Is there an existing sidewalk along the Frontage Road frontage of this property? 14. Handicapped ramps should be provided at the corners of the street crossings for the Frontage Road and West Swallow Road, if not already there. 15. Is a replat needed for this development proposal? The west line of this project needs to be clarified. A non -regulated land transfer between Lot 3 and Lots 1 & 2 may be needed. Hopefully the recorded plat will not have to be affected. 16. Is the fire access issue resolved regarding this site? Please check with Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority about this. He can be reached at 221- 6570. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. This item has been scheduled for the August 5' Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. Please return all documents red -lined by City staff with submission of revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. The revisions need to be resubmitted as soon as possible to ensure that staff can review them prior to going to public hearing. You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments, if necessary. Sincerely, ADelo Steve Olt Project Planner cc: Engineering Stormwater Utility Zoning Water & Wastewater Transportation Planning Dellenbach Motors Subaru McNutt & Associates Stewart & Associates Project File #50-98 *00 *90 DATE : 5/8/89 HPARTMEN-1- ITEM: Dellenbach Chevrolet Addition - Preliminary and Final No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below) i VA i rYfi�C�IlI Date �p W j�7 )/ Signature � , PROJECT COMMENT SHEET Current Planning DATE: V 13118 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT:-DlQl Lc� 6r. -!PorC, b.v PLANNER: ENGINEER: Gj'V.s r i cti� eNo Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Dellenbach Fire Line August 13, 1998 Revise the first general note to reflect `approval of these plans' rather than execution of the development agreement. The Section through the water line shows a new driveway ramp to be located in this area. There is no access off of McClelland approved to this site. Any change to the site plan (i.e. access off of McClelland) requires the submittal and approval of a minor amendment to the site. In addition an access change of this kind would require revision to the utility plans also showing he change in grading and island design. Therefore if they are wanting to install the waterline right away then it appears it will need to be shown lowed with the minimum cover occurring with the existing lot grades. i Date: 3Signature PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS: ❑ PLAT ❑ SITE ❑ UTILITY ❑ LANDSCAPE 1%w PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 28, 1998 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: #50-98 Dellenbach Subaru - PDP - Type II All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 ❑ No Problems E Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "fir Globe l w &,,,. 1 jc a Date: CHECK HERE IP YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVEONS _ rPit _ Site _ I�I�,�y�,�e�R" _ Oda_'�""'1 _ U4 _' °1°101°1" City of Fort Collins PROJECT Iuu SEP 2 8 1998 COMMENT S City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: September 28, 1998 TO: Transp. Planning PROJECT: #50-98 Dellenbach Subaru - PDP - Type II All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, October 28,1998 ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) A —�� +',< q ga - �� rL'I 1�tcr l IC-161Mu kok � to-� eik i i`��� "'6 mid rL� w���1W"c- li 111fN4�.�j�r� Vk tk -COr,( 11 , 7`D 4. icwc iC fG' Q�x c ri— ewl"tL,�j Date: �Signature: W flL--6lJ f CHECK HERE lF YOU WISH M RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _✓ it _jD���ap R" _ Oda �i�� —t&L" t* — Rdw @ ' im City of Fort Collins td PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: 28 September, 1998 DEPT: Engineering PROJECT: #50-98 Dellenbach Subaru - PDP - Type II PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Mark McCallum All comments must be received by: 10/28/98 o Problems Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) General Comments: 0 See redline comments on all sheets of the utility plan. More specific comments will be mentioned below. Utility Plan Comments: Cover Sheet; Sheet 1 of 6: ■ Include the legal description under the title. ■ Reference the current soils investigation. ■ There is a new vertical control listing for the City. Check with Wally Muscott at 221-6605 for more information. Copy of Subdivision Plat; Sheet 2 of 6: —J' ■ The 30 feet of unknown land (see redline comments) is not included on the original Replat of the Swallow Subdivision. ® A fire access easement should be dedicated for the proposed fire access lane. Utility and Grading Plan; Sheet 3 of 6: 0 The portion of the roadway to be vacated should be processed through the engineering 140 department. After re iOng through the traffic impact study, would it be appropriate to vacate the entire porti�t, F�rontage Road? What was the reasoning to only vacate a portion of the Frontage Road? 'A` ',D Show all ROW dimensions, easements, centerlines for roadways, and existing features 150 feet beyond the project site. ■ The sidewalk along College Avenue should be a minimum of 7 feet in width. Kathleen Reavis of Transportation Planning would like to see if a larger bicycle/pedestrian path could be designed. The sidewalk along West Swallow Road should be a minimum of 5 feet. It should be detached to the new City design standards. 00 The Site Plan depicts a larger portion of the existing Dellenbach Motors. The Utility Plan should mirror the Site Plan in this case. It will be helpful for the review of the proposed access point off College Avenue. O In regard to the access point, the following comments were made: • The TIS was correct in representing the portion of College Avenue as a NR-B, but the design storage was not calcula orrectly. The length of the auxiliary lane should include 144 feet of taper and 0 f storage measured from the point -of -curvature. The access width should be 25-40 feet measured from the lip of the gutter. O • The access will need to be approved by the State (CDOT). o I would like to see typical cross -sections and profiles for the length of the access. 4J The radius for the access should be 20 feet. Show the spot elevations as depict in the City Street Design Manual as D-18 or D-19. Note: Check the State Highway Access Code and with Tess Jones (CDOT) at 350- 2163 for more information. ■ The parking stall setback from the flowline of traffic on Swallow Road is 50 feet. The redlined parking stalls will have to be removed. This is based on a collector street with an ADT less than 750 vehicles. ■ The parking stall dimension adjacent to the building should be widen to accommodate four feet of walk after the 2 foot overhang. 4 The parking stall layout should be designed to the LUC criteria. This would include all L display parking. ,,tOt-) DaSir�i e.tt7pNLY Drainage and Erosion Control Plan; Sheet 4 of 6: ■ Show all locations of outfall curb and gutter and where transitions occur back to inflow curb and gutter. Detail Sheet; Sheet 6 of 6: • Include the street intersection details D-18 and D-19. 0 Include the sidewalk transition detail. O Include sidewalk repair detail D-21. Site & Landscape Plan Comments: