Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIGDEN FARM, 8TH FILING, THE SHOPS @ RIGDEN FARM - PDP - 56-98R - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)Number: 5 Created: 10/10/2002 REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT, 7-31-03: 1 see that flag note #1 indicates lot lines, but other than that I still don't see where they've addressed this previous comment. For example, King soopers dimensions still state 192 x 317, but the building scales to about 254' from north to south, counting the entrance canopy. They've indicated that Retail C is 184' from north to south, but it scales to about 189' or 190'. If the building permit applciation for Retail C comes in with a dimension greater than 184', then we won't be able to approve the permit. No envelope dimensions are shown for the bank or for the future pads, and I still don't see setback distances shown to property lines for the bank or King Soopers, . The previous site plan at least showed the setback distances for the future pads, but even those are missing from the most recent site plan. 5 REPEAT COMMENT: They still need to CLEARLY label and dimension the building envelopes and show distance to lot lines. i.e. what's the buliding envelope and dimensions for King Soopers? They show dimensions of 192' x 317'. However, putting a scale to the plan, the building is about 255' x 320'. So they need to show, dimension and label the' envelope line for all buildings. In addition, they have responded that distances to lot lines are shown, especially for Phase 1 buildings. I don't see any such dimensions for those buildings. They do show setback 'distances for the future pads to what I assume are lot lines, but they need to label those lines as lot lines. . . Original comment: Building envelopes should be clearly labeled and dimensioned on the site plan, and distances from envelope to lot lines shown. ` Number: 6 Created: 10/10/2002 REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT, 7-31-03: 1 still don't see where the height of the screen wall is indicated. REPEAT COMMENT: Their letter indicates they've shown the height of the screen wall on the elevation drawings. I don't see it shown, at least not on sheets 5 of 9 through 7 of 9. Original comment: Need to indicate the height of the screen wall along Drake. Number: 243 Created: 7/31 /2003 Their latest "Response to Comments" letter did not address any of Zoning's previous comments. So there's no narrative to explain what they did in response to the previous comments. Looking at the plans, it appears that they took care of some of the outstanding issues but not others. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to -this project,. please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Yours Truly, Steve Olt City Planner Page 3 As previously indicated, raise proposed storm sewers to the extent possible to avoid water main lowerings. Use joint deflection when possible to avoid fitting lowerings of water mains. Water mains are to maintain 4.5 feet to 5.5 feet depth of bury. When this is not possible use joint deflection to achieve a maximum of 6.5 feet of bury and use fittings to lower water mains beyond 6.5 feet. Number: 248 Created: 8/6/2003 Concrete encase all storm sewer joints/lines 10 feet each way at all water main crossings when the storm sewer is above or within 18-inches vertically of the water mains. Number: 249 Created: 8/6/2003 See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Department: Zoning Topic: zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Number: 2 Created: 10/10/2002 REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT, 7-31-03: Still don't see the trash detail in the architectural drawings. REPEAT COMMENT: Their response letter states that the trash detail is provided in the civil engineering drawings. That's ok, but not sufficient. They MUST provide it in the architectural plans. The zoning department will inspect it for compliance, not Engineering. Zoning doesn't get copies of the approved civil drawings, so it does no good to have the detail in those drawings. Original comment: Need to provide a trash enclosure detail. Number: 3 Created: 10/10/2002 rREPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT, 7-31-03: They've now removed the specific signs from the buildings, with the exception of the 1 st Bank. They have shown dashed boxes on the retail buildings as suggested in my earlier comment, however they aren't labeled. What are the dashed boxes? I assume they represent sign locations, but they need to label them as such. The King Soopers elevations show no signs and no dashed boxes, therefore I assume King Soopers will have no signs. Since this is in the neighborhood sign district, we can only issue sign permits for signs in locations shown on the approved elevations. Need to remove the specific "1st bank" signs from the elevations. REPEAT COMMENT: They still show SPECIFIC signage on the elevation drawings. The King Soopers signs are still too tall and don't comply. Their repsonse letter states that they've eliminated references to specific signage. Since they still show specific signage, they obviously haven't eliminate references. They should do as.suggested in the original comment - use a dashed box to show the proposed typical location of wall signs. Original comment: The signs shown on the King Soopers building do not comply with the sign code. This is in the neighborhood sign district, wherein each tenant is allowed only 1 sign per exterior wall (3.8.7(E)(10)). The "bakery", "deli", "food", etc signs are all considered to be individual signs. All the signage will need to be "grouped" in order to be considered 1 sign. Also, the "king soopers" signs are too tall. It is not advised to put specific signs on the elevation drawings. Rather it is best to just show a generic dashed box whereever they propose signage to be located, and label them as "sign location, typical". This applies to all the elevation drawings on sheets 5 of 9 through 7 of 9. Number: 4 Created: 10/10/2002 REPEAT, REPEAT COMMENT, 7-31-03: Assuming that the dashed boxes on the east elevations will be possible sign locations, they still need to add the note regarding lighting as explained below, or ask for a modification. REPEAT COMMENT: I appreciate their response comment regarding the issue of illumination of signs on the east walls. However, Section 3.8.7(E)(12) still applies since the INC zone does allow residential uses. They cite Sec. 4.19(D)(1) to explain what MIGHT occur on the east side of Illinois. However, we have no guarantee that is how it would develop. It's possible that the developer on the east side could ask for a modification to 4.19(D)(1). Therefore, we have to apply the strict language of 3.8.7(E)(12). That means they need to add a note as explained in my original comment, or remove the signs from the east walls. If they don't want to add the note or remove the signs, then they'll need to request a modification to 3.8.7(E)(12). Original comment: There are a lot of signs proposed on the east elevations of buildings B and C. If the property on the east side of Illinois is for residential, then signs on the east walls will not be allowed to be illuminated between the hours of 11:00 pm (or 1/2 hour after closing, whichever time is later) and 6:00 am. (3.8.7(E)(12)). A note should be added to the plan to this affect. Page 2 6a STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citv of Fort Collins WYATT & ASSOC. Date: 8/6/2003 DENNIS WYATT 4p im,�e.V 1865 S. PEARL ST. DENVER, CO 80210 Staff has reviewed your submittal for RIGDEN FARM 8TH FILING, THE SHOPS @ RIGDEN FARM, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Monica Moore Topic: General Number: 241 Created: 7/21 /2003 No comments Department: Transfort Issue Contact: Garold Smith Topic: Transportation Number: 242 Created: 7/28/2003 Future Transit Stop addressed as Detail #49; therefore, no further comments. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility Plans Number: 98 Created: 10/30/2002 2/3/03 Repeat comment; Maintain 4 feet of separation between meter pits and all permanent structures (Le. building envelopes, light poles, trash enclosures, etc.). Meter must be placed in pits outside of buildings. Curb stops and meter pits are not allowed in sidewalks and drives. The only meter pit and curb stop which will be allowed in a walk will be that at the King Soopers building. The remaining pad sites should be evaluated for size and location of services at the time they are developed. Number: 181 Created: 2/5/2003 As previous indicated, include a note on the SITE PLAN that "Any work required on water and sewer lines which requires removal of decorative hard surfacing shall be repaired with an asphalt patch and shall be the owners/developers responsibility to repair decorative surfacing". Number: 182 Created: 2/6/2003 As previously indicated, more thought needs to be given to the location of the future pad site water and sewer stubs. When services are stubbed out of the asphalt for future buildings they are very seldom in the right locate or the right size. It is our suggestion that the future buildings install there own services which will be sized according to the use and located in the right location. It apears to us that the proposed location for the meter pits for lots 6 and 7 will located in the sidewalk infront of the buildings. Number: 244 Created: 8/6/2003 Remove all reference from all plans that water mains are to be constructed with PVC pipe. Number: 245 Created: 8/6/2003 Include the note to use cathodic protection isolation for the connection of the fire hydrant on the existing 24-inch water main. Number: 246 Created: 8/6/2003 Maintain 10 feet of separation between thrust blocks on water lines and all other underground utilities. Number: 247 Created: 8/6/2003 Page 1