Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKING SOOPERS FUELING STATION (CEDARWOOD PLAZA) - PDP - 40-07 - CORRESPONDENCE - (37)6a REVISION Cityof fort Collins Planning and Zoning COMMENT SHEET PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Fax: 970-416-2020 DATE: March 24, 2008 TO: PFA PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt #40-07 KING SOOPERS FUELING CENTER — TYPE I Second Round of Review PLEASE NOTE: Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: April 2, 2008 RECEIVED MAY 0 q, Z009 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems [� Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) Cu V�L () a k L'\ Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape 66a Cityof Port Collins Planning and Zoning PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Fax: 970-416-2020 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: March 24, 2008 TO: Post Office PROJECT PLANNER: Steve Olt #40-07 KING SOOPERS FUELING CENTER — TYPE I Second Round of Review PLEASE NOTE: Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: April 2, 2008 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference KNo Problems ❑ Problems /or Concerns (see below, attached, or DMS) I/1 �T /s AnI p��tPj,-57<zl,,Wlk1/ ` <tif !S ��vr'Ss �+�Jr�� li67 1�7C Orowtk 1 E. B na Boardwalk Nam � ,Growth 301 E. Boardwalk Fart Collins CO 80929-9999 Name lease 'print)v CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other /1 J (I QC^ Cityof FoR Collins i _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape . .F indicates that the logos on the canopy are 33" tall. Also, the maximum size allowed for the one canopy sign on the north fascia is 12 square feet (Sec. 3.8.7(E)(13), but the logo and letters combined is more than 18 square feet (the logo can't be considered as one sign and the letters as another, because then there would be two signs when only one is allowed. So as one sign, it can't exceed 12 square feet) Number:53 Created:3/25/2008 [3/25/08] Both of the monument signs appear to be in the ROW once the additional ROW is dedicated. They have to be on private property. Additionally, Sec. 3.8.7(G)(2) requires that a ground sign has to be at least 15' from an interior side lot line. If the facility is addressed off Elizabeth, then the south lot line is the rear lot line and the Taft Hill sign meets this requirement, but the Elizabeth sign is then closer than 15' to the west lot line, which becomes the side lot line. If the address is off Taft Hill, then the opposite is true (the Elizabeth sign is ok, but the Taft sign isn't. This completes staff (and outside reviewing agencies) review and comments at this time. Red -lined plans from City departments are included with this comment letter. Additional comments and red -lined plans may be forthcoming. Another round of staff review is determined to be necessary. This proposal is subject to the 90-day revision re -submittal requirement (from the date of this comment letter, being April 3, 2008) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all 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. Once re -submitted, the revisions will go through a 2-week round of review before being discussed at a Wednesday morning staff review meeting. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at 970-221-6341. Yours Truly, *At lam\ Steve Olt, City's Project Planner cc: Randy Maizland King Soopers Current Planning File #40-07 Page 9 Number:89 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] See red -line comments on the Site & Landscape Plan. Be sure that any revisions to the Utility Plan sheets are also reflected on the Site and Landscape Plan sheets. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Alan Rutz Topic: Light & Power Number:69 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] The doors are on the east side of the transformer. Remove landscaping within 10' of transformer. See comment 22. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewaterlssue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Stormwater Number:74 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] The spill containment was added, however that does not constitute water quality treatment. Please provide water quality treatment in compliance with City and State requirements. Please provide a full set of plans. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewaterlssue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: WaterMastewater Number:70 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] It appears that the existing sewer service connects to the manhole in Elizabeth; therefore, to abandon the service, excavate and cap/grout service on site AND install a water -tight plug in the manhole. Number:71 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Frost free yard hydrants not allowed unless proper backflow prevention is provided. Contact John Nelson (221-6677) for information regarding notes and details to be included on utility plans. Number:72 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Provide a complete set of utility plans with the re -submittal. Number:73 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Add note to coordinate with Water Utilities (416-2165) on re-routing of the water service and re -location of the meter pit. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning Number:52 Created:3/25/2008 [3/25/08] Per Section 3.8.7(E)(13), only 2 signs are allowed on the canopy, one on the east fascia and one on the north fascia. The plan shows 4 such signs, one on each fascia. The south and west signs need to be removed. Per Section 3.8.7(E)(8), the maximum allowed height of logo and cabinet signs is 30", the plan Page 8 Number:81 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] The sidewalk being shown on the plans will be considered and INTERIM sidewalk since it will need to be removed and replaced when the street is widened in the future. If you wish to construct this sidewalk in the INTERIM location you will also be required to escrow funds for the future ULTIMATE sidewalk. Please provide an engineers cost estimate for the removal of the interim walk and the construction of a new 6 foot ultimate walk for review. This payment will be provided in the development agreement and will be due at the time of building permit. If you do not wish to escrow money for an ULTIMATE sidewalk you must construct it in the ultimate location with this project (at the new ROW line). Number:82 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Please place a note on the Utility Plan that states that all interim improvements within the ROW are subject to the terms and conditions of the development agreement. The temporary use of the ROW for the fuel station will be outlined in the development agreement language. Number:83 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Please call out the pedestrian ramps on the Utility Plan sheet with the LCUASS standard detail. Including detail for truncated domes. Number:84 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] All LCUASS typical construction details must be provided at Final Compliance submittal. All detail sheets shall include all applicable LCUASS details for ROW construction and should be located at the end of the plan set with signature blocks. Be sure to use the latest 2001 adopted LCUASS details. Number:85 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Please clearly show/label and dimension the existing and new proposed ROW on the Utility Plan sheet. Number:86 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Please label the sidewalks - Tie back into existing walk - at both ends and call out the radius for the transitions. Number:87 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Some of the text is too small to read on the Utility Plan sheet. Please enlarge. Number:88 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Clearly show and label existing or proposed water and sewer service connections on the Utility Plan sheet. . Page 7 Number:34 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] Same [12/31/071 Please see the red -lines, Sheet 4, regarding ROW & Easement dedications and sidewalk location and width requirements. Number:37 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] 1 will defer to Stormwater regarding detention or water quality requirements. [12/31/07] No storm water detention/water quality being shown. From previous meetings and the conceptual review meeting I was under the impression that at a minimum, some water quality detention would be required, maybe in the parkway strip, if not on -site. It appears all drainage is surfaced drained directly to the street through the access driveways?? I will defer to Stormwater for comments regarding drainage detention requirements on this site. Number:38 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] Same [12/31/07] Please add a standard signature block to sheet 5. Number:75 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Only Sheet 4 of the Utility Plan set was re -submitted for review. This was discussed by telephone with Galloway. My review of sheet 4 only has been completed; however, all other comments on the remaining sheets will be carried forward. Please re -submit a complete revised set of Utility Plans with your next submittal. All comments clouded in green are carry-over repeat comments. All comments clouded in red are new comments. Number:77 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] A ROW dedication legal description was e-mailed to me for review. A review fee of $250 must be submitted as well. The bearings and distances on the legal description do not match those shown on the Utility Plan set. Please revise to match and resubmit the revised legal description with completed and signed deed of dedication. I can provide you with the dedication template in a Word document by e- mail on request. Send request to rmaizland(aD-fcgov.com. Number:78 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Please submit a signed letter from Cedarwood Plaza (prior to scheduling a hearing) indicating that they are OK with the cross lot access arrangement proposed on the plans on the NW corner of the parcel. Number:79 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Monument signs may not encroach into the new ROW area. Please pull these signs out of the ROW limits. Number:80 Created:4/1/2008 [4/1/08] Please label and call out both of the new driveway cuts per LCUASS DWG 707. Call out the radius at the driveway. Page 6 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number:25 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] Legal description for ROW dedication was submitted by email however the review fees and deed of dedication have not been provided. Legal does not match Utility Plan regarding bearings and distances shown. Please revise the legal (or plans) to match and submit the revised legal, deed of dedication and $250 review fee with your next submittal. [12/31/07] At the June 18 Conceptual Review meeting, it was stated that new additional ROW dedications would be needed for both South Taft Hill Road and West Elizabeth Street, 57.5 feet from centerline and 42 feet from centerline respectively. Based on the scale 1=20 shown on the plan, it does not appear that enough ROW exists and no new ROW is being proposed??? A 15 foot utility easement must also be dedicated behind the new ROW. Please see the redline comments. Number:28 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] Same - Incomplete submittal. Only Sheet 4 was re -submitted. [12/31/07] The Landscape, Lighting and Elevation plans should be separated from the Utility Plan set. They are filed separately. Please revise the index on the cover sheet. A detail sheet will be required at the final compliance review stage. Number:29 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] Same - Only sheet 4 was re -submitted. Incomplete plan submittal. [12/31/07] Two City of Fort Collins bench marks are required on the plans. Please provide this information on the cover sheet. Number:30 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] Same - Incomplete re -submittal package. [12/31/07] Please use the standard General Notes (1-48) from L.C.U.A.S.S. Appendix E. Available online. List all variance requests under note 48 (i.e. driveway - intersection separation etc...). Number:32 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] Same - only sheet 4 was re -submitted. [12/31/071 Please provide the standard indemnification statements on the cover sheet (provided with redlines). Please add all consultant info on the cover sheet (i.e. Traffic Eng, Geotech, Architect etc...). Number:33 Created:12/31/2007 [4/1/08] Same [12/31/07] Please label in bold print FOR REFERENCE ONLY on the bottom right corner of sheet 2. Page 5 Number:67 Created:3/28/2008 [3/28/08] The Encore Flat Lens 200W Metal Halide fixtures under the canopy appear to be completely flush mounted with the ceiling deck of the canopy. Is this a reasonable assumption? Could the 200W Metal Halide light source (being very white) be contributing to the high foot-candle levels outside of the canopy? Maybe a High Pressure Sodium source would be better? There may be concern about the Encore Focus - Double or Single Deck 100W Metal Halide fixtures. They obviously are directional lights that extend down below the actual ceiling deck of the canopy. Number:68 Created:3/28/2008 [3/28/08] There may be concern about the Encore Focus - Double or Single Deck 100W Metal Halide fixtures. They obviously are directional lights that extend down below the actual ceiling deck of the canopy. Being directional, rather than wholly down -directional, they can be directed to areas outside of the canopy, which could be problematic. Topic: Site Plan Number:16 Created:12/27/2007 [3/26/08] On the Site Plan, there is a divided square under the canopy in the middle of the site. What does it represent? [12/27/07] There are several symbols on the Site Plan that are not labeled. They should be removed. Please see the red -lined Site Plan. Number:58 Created:3/26/2008 [3/26/08] On the Site Plan, there is a divided square under the canopy in the middle of the site. What does it represent? Number:59 Created:3/26/2008 [3/26/08] The 2 proposed monument signs (items #31) cannot be in the street rights -of -way. Number:60 Created:3/26/2008 [3/26/08] To ensure full legibility of the Site Plan, please avoid ovelapping of text with line work and shading. Number:61 Created:3/26/2008 [3/26/08] Is Sheet 3 of 7, Site Details included in the Utility Plan set where it really belongs? Page 4 Number:57 Created:3/26/2008 [3/26/08] Please add a Note #5 under LANDSCAPE GUARANTEE AND MAINTENANCE stating: The property owner will be responsible for the on -going upkeep and maintenance of all plant material in the public street rights -of -way. Topic: Lighting Plan Number:62 Created:3/27/2008 [3/27/08] Section 3.2.4(B) of the City's Land Use Code (LUC) states, in part, that all development shall submit a proposed lighting plan that meets the functional security needs of the proposed land use without adversely affecting adjacent properties or the community. Section 3.2.4(D)(3) states, in part, that light sources shall be concealed and fully shielded and shall feature sharp cut-off capacity so as to minimize up -light, spill -light, glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property. Under -canopy fueling areas shall feature flush -mount, flat lens light fixtures as part of any newly constructed canopy or remodeled canopy. Number:63 Created:3/27/2008 [3/27/08] Section 3.2.4(D)(8) of the LUC states that light levels measured 20' beyond the property line of the development site (adjacent to residential uses and public rights -of -way) shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candle as a direct result of the on -site lighting. Based on the Lighting Plan as submitted, lighting levels 20' outside of this property along South Taft Hill Road range from 4 foot-candles to 6 foot-candles; and, lighting levels outside of this property along West Elizabeth Street range from 3 foot- candles to 5 foot-candles. Are these high numbers a result of the street lighting? Number:64 Created:3/27/2008 [3/27/081 The table in Section 3.2.4(C) of the LUC allows for the average maintained maximum foot-candle level of 20.0 for under -canopy areas. Also, this table allows for initial installation maximum foot-candle levels of 26.0 for under -canopy areas. Based on the Lighting Plan as submitted, the under -canopy foot-candle levels range (generally) from 11.2 to 25.4. These are all acceptable numbers if they represent the initial installation of the under -canopy lights. Number:65 Created:3/27/2008 [3/27/08] Section 3.2.4(D)(7) of the LUC states that maximum on -site lighting levels shall not exceed 10 foot-candles, except for loading and unloading platforms where the maximum lighting level shall be 20 foot-candles (excepting under -canopy lighting). The Lighting Plan as submitted shows levels of 15 to 24 foot-candles distances of 7' to 15' outside the edges of the canopy. This is unacceptable, what is driving it? Number:66 Created:3/28/2008 [3/28/08] Is it necessary to have pole heights of 30' for the lighting at the 4 corners of the site? Also, the proposed 750W Metal Halide light source may be too high. Page 3 Number:4 Created:12/27/2007 [3/26/08] Did not receive revised Cover Sheet. [12/27/07] In General Note 17 on the Cover Sheet, please add: Both pole and building -mounted fixtures, including under -canopy lighting, will feature down - directional and full cutoff luminaries. The word 'cutoff is inappropriately shown twice in this note. Number:5 Created:12/27/2007 [3/26/08] Did not receive revised Cover Sheet. [12/27/07] In General Note 11 on the Cover Sheet, please add: Maximum building height is 24'. Minimum building height is 20'. Number:50 Created:1/4/2008 [3/26/08] Repeat. See Zoning comments #52 & #53. [1/4/08] All project signage is subject to the City's Sign Code that is administered by the Zoning Department. Please contact Zoning for information on the sign allowance and locations for this development proposal. They can be reached at 970- 416-2745. Topic: Landscape Plan Number:54 Created:3/26/2008 [3/26/08] Previous comment #20 dealt with Tim Buchanan's (City Forester) comment about tree species. Part of the applicant's response to this stated: "There is a statement on the plans questioning adequate screening of the plant materials in the sight triangles. Typically these areas are not used for screening, we have provided plat material that creates seasonal interest and complements the layering of materials." Still a question about the 3 "Petite" Indigo Butterfly Bush in the middle of the planting bed along the north side of the site, adjacent to West Elizabeth Street. How tall does this plant get? Certainly not a sight distance concern here. Number:55 Created:3/26/2008 [3/26/08] To avoid problems with the City's future scanning of the Landscape Plan, please remove the shading in the planting beds at the entries to the site. Number:56 Created:3/26/2008 [3/26/08] To ensure full legibility of plans, please avoid overlapping of text with line work. Page 2 , STAFF PROJECT REVIEW City of Fort Collins Galloway & Company Date: 4/3/2008 c/o Matthew Duhaime 5350 DTC Parkway Greenwood Village CO 80111 Staff has reviewed your submittal for KING SOOPERS FUELING CENTER, PDP TYPE 1, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 12/27/2007 [3/26/08] Did not receive a Cover Sheet with the revisions re -submittal. [12/27/07] The set of plans as submitted must be broken up into 2 sets as follows: *1 set (for Planning) ... Cover sheet Site Plan (separated from Utility Plan) Landscape Plan Exterior Elevations and Signage Lighting Plan *1 set (for Engineering) ... Cover Sheet Alta/ACSM Land Title Survey Demolition Plan Utility Plan (separated from Site Plan) Grading and Drainage Plan This the way the City of Fort Collins files development plans. Number:2 Created:12/27/2007 [3/26/08] Did not receive revised Cover Sheet. These signature blocks must be on the Final Site Plan, or Cover Sheet for Site Plan, when submitted after public hearing for the Project Development Plan (PDP). [12/27/07] The required Owners Certification, Notary Public Certification, and Director of Planning & Zoning Approval signature blocks must be added to the Site Plan, etc., set of plans. Examples of these signature blocks are attached to the Staff comment letter. Number:3 Created:12/27/2007 [3/26/08] Did not receive revised Cover Sheet. [12/27/07] General Note 16 on the Cover Sheet states that "construction is scheduled to begin in June, 2006". This note must come from a previous set of plans for another project. Page 1 v