HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARKET AT HORSETOOTH COMMONS PUD - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-08-16CITY OF FOf-T COLLINS
COMMUNITY CEVELOP%1ENT DEPA.PTVENT- PL NNING DIVISION
M E Cl 0 R A N D U Al
4"Leslie Beckman-'a✓t-OlAAAt4Z
Parks -Vie it -rZ4110✓
TO: 9u¢hlw�• 1 m �ruchauw�—
P`R,I�l: Mike Herzig, Develenr.ent Coordinator
RE: Subdivision Utility Plans
DATE: May 6, 1987
Submitted for your review and comment are utility glans for:
46f/1
-77/�E- 4AIZ4F7 47' /{o,e5E -Tdv7H lo,wA&.V5
Please respond bv:
i
May 15, 1987
av, -,/' a 6c ✓CS�Jou S..6 [< /z�.� �Gra i.stEvi a.�rcE 6'/
St'����5�/�� a✓E45 ,
MAY 2 1 198'1
OFFICE OF COVYUNITY 300 La Pone Ave. P O Box 580 Fort Collins Colorado 80522 • (303) 2211 6750
DEVELOPMENT. PLANNING DIVISION
,S'Ak-'
31V�6&�f-
ITFM: � u� 5 - r t � v ��
-----
��«j - 4 96-IT11-I
No Problems
_ Problems or Concerns (see below
U � � �%6�2�7D�7 rf,S i��» �✓ i7�� Gv�//
Otr,/e U yc 4�tE�
AW
Date �i�g��� Signature
�t - :7/ 9&-2111
No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below
--
Date Signature
Q
City of Fort Collins
August 19, 1988
n
Clevel( ient`Services
Planning Department
Mr. John Barnett
c/o ZVFK Architects and Planners
11 Old Town Square, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Dear Mr. Barnett:
Staff has reviewed the request for preliminary P.U.D. for Lot 5 at the Market at
Ilorsetooth Commons and offers the following comments:
1. The planting of street trees in the front lot utility easement on the north side
of Horsetooth Road must be coordinated with the Public Service Company.
2. There is an cxisting sewer main at the northeast corner of Lot 5. This main
should be completed to the west as per the Horsetooth Commons master utility
plan, as a part of this development. Also, any existing water or sewer taps
which were intended for use by Lot 5 must be either used or abandoned.
3. The site plan is unclear as to how vehicles are to gain access to the drive -up
windows without crossing Lot 4. Also, the 4 parking stalls on the west must
also depend on Lot 4 for access.
4. Although the request is a preliminary, the site plan indicates that there would
be no landscaping on the north and west sides of the buildings nor the parking
lot islands. In general, the landscape concept appears weak.
5. Please indicate how the proposed architecture will blend with the approved
Circle K Convenience Store. As a center, it is important that architecture be
made compatible in order to avoid the appearance of a strip commercial center.
6. The landscape design objectives refer to berming yet no berms appear on the
site plan.
7. In general, the site plan appears to rely on Lot 4 for vehicular access to the
drive -up windows. Without having the luxury to review proposed land uses on
Lot 4, this encroachment appears to place a future burden on Lot 4. Staff is
reluctant to allow a site plan that relies so heavily on an adjacent undeveloped
lot. Alternatives would be to replat the lots so there is no encroachment,
eliminate one of the drive -up windows, reduce the building square footage so
as to not crowd the site, or plan Lot 4 at this stage.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
Page 2
8. Would the internal access road be constructed all the way to Richmond Dr.?
9. The Traffic Impact Analysis would have to be amended to show how the new
curb cut opposite the Circle K entrance would impact Horsetooth Road.
10. The handicap parking space on the west would require crossing the drive -up
lane. This appears to be dangerous.
11. Bicycle parking is not indicated.
12. Building envelope dimensions are not indicated.
13. Staff is concerned about the number of parking stalls. While the shared
parking concept is valid, there appears to be no provision for employee
parking. Would employee parking be forced to the north and would this park-
ing be available with this phase? In general, parking does not appear to be
adequate.
This concludes staff comments at this time. In order to remain on schedule for
the September 26, 1988 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, please note the follow-
ing deadlines:
Plan revisions are due September 7, 1988.
PMT's, colored renderings, and 10 final prints are due September 19, 1988.
Slides iin lieu of renderings would be due September 22, 1988.
I suggest we meet to discuss these comments. Please feel free to call at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Ted Shepard,
City Planner
cc: Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director
Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: May 14, 1998 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #96-81Q The Market @ Horsetooth Commons,
Associates in Family Medicine - (LDGS)
Preliminary/Final Review
All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, June 10,1998
A
Date:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
PIS _ Site _D=p RqW _Offer
_ UWq _ Redline UWiry _ IA6*
PROJECT
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: 14, 1998 TO: Mapping/Drafting
PROJECT: #96-81 Q The Market @ Horsetooth Commons,
Associates in Family Medicine - (LDGS)
Preliminary/Final Review
All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff
review meeting;:
Wednesday, June 10,1998
C '-VciA—
Date:
CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_ Plat _ Site _ Dram* Repot _ Oler [J�—
_ Utility _ Ralline Utility Lads* of Fort Collins
141 {6
#s PROJECT
ff
i��■ COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: May 14, 1998 TO: Engineering Pavement
PROJECT: #96-81Q The Market @ Horsetooth Commons,
Associates in Family Medicine - (LDGS)
Preliminary/Final Review
All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff
review meeting:
Wednesday, June 10,1998
1'\16) CO I'll
Date: 'S `IU-_
CHECK HE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS
_ Plat _ Site _ Drainage Report _ Other
_ Utility _ Rt&e Ugi _ landscape
City of Fort Collins
PROJECT ;a
COMMENT SHEET
City of Fort Collins
Current Planning
DATE: May 14, 1998 TO: Engineering
PROJECT: #96-81Q The Market @ Horsetooth Commons,
Associates in Family Medicine - (LDGS)
Preliminary/Final Review
All comments must be received by Mike Ludwig no later than the staff
review meeting;:
Wednesday, June 10,1998
Date: l /O -,9Fi sigiature�� �i c
CHECK HERE T YOU NO TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS "
_ Plat _ Siz _ Dmge Rep— Otber ire
_ Utility _ Redline Utility _ lands* City of F o_
No Text
DATE: 6 May 8> DEPARTMtNT:
ITEM: 96-81G THE MARKET AT HORSETOOTH COMMONS - Final
No Problems
=� Problems or Concerns (see below)
Jlr)2&d��
J
��JyCN'�`.�-�n� ✓�//wt^�� �/Yli .�'V'��2�L��/
s
Date Signature
DATE: 6 May 87 DEPARTMLi �T:
ITEM 96-81G THE MARKET AT HORSETOOTH COMMONS - Final
No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below)
-IZVA
7Y
14
A//
ikr 26
Date Signature
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 21, 1987
Ms. Liz Hobbs
ZVFK Architects
11 Old Town Square
Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO. 80524
Dear Liz:
The Staff has reviewed the plans for the Market at Horsetooth Commons and
offers the following comments:
1. The large retail building must be built to water supply availability or
provided with a fire sprinkler system.
2. The dimensions of the building envelopes must be shown on the site
plan.
3. The relation of the large retail building to Richmond Drive is still a
concern with. this plan. Staff recognizes that the setback at the closest
point to Richmond has been increased from 20' to 24'. However, this final
plan differs from the preliminary in that five trash enclosures have been
added to this side of the building. These trash enclosures extend out 8'
into the landscaped area thus crowding the streetscape. Staff suggests
that some measures be taken to relieve the impact on the streetscape in
this area. One solution would be to shift the building to the south to
maintain a 24' to 30' setback including the trash enclosures. Another
solution would be to relocate the trash enclosures in a more dispersed
fashion around the building. All trash enclosures should depend on a
denser screening than the traditional street tree.
4. The material of the trash enclosure is not specified. Perhaps a "typi-
cal" enclosure could be detailed on the site plan.
5. The 3' walk leading from Richmond to the trash enclosure appears inade-
quate. How would this walk function with the trash removal equipment?
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES, PLANNING
300 LAPorle Ave. P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 (303) 221.6750
Eiorsetooth Commons Cc ants
May 21, 1987 - Page �
The typical trash dumpster would require a wider walk and it would seem an
onerous task to wheel out to the street on a regular basis.
6. Bicycle parking is listed in the legend but does not appear on the site
plan. A bicycle rack should be provided for the retail parking area.
7. Motorcycle parking appears on the site plan for the convenience store
only but is not listed in the legend. There should be a designated motor-
cycle parking space for the retail building also.
8. The architectural rendering for the retail building is not specific.
This was an area of concern at preliminary. The particular area in ques-
tion is the north elevation along Richmond Drive. It was addressed by
Staff at preliminary that this area should show more visual interest and
demonstrate positive aesthetic appeal. Please specify materials and colors
on the rendering and indicate how preliminary concerns will he met.
9. The improvements to the storm drainage basin are eligible for developer
repays. To fac'-litate these paybacks, the developer must submit an exhibit
B for the development agreement. "Exhibit B" is a cost estimate for major
drainage improvements and mutt be completed by the engineer and submitted
as soon as possible. This is in reference to the 36" storm sewer_. An
example of an exhibit R is attached.
10. The size of the detention area needs to be recalculated. Ponding
depth should be no more than 18".
11. There is a conflict between the site plan and the utility plan on the
location of the detention pond. The site plan shows this area to be the
parking lot for the retail building. This conflict should be resolved. The
site plan should reflect the location of pond A and label it as temporary
detention. A note should accompany the site plan stating that pond A is
temporary and to be relocated with construction of the retail building and
the parking lot. If the parking lot is to serve as detention area, it
should be labeled as such on the site plan.
12. The final PUD document must address, in schematic form, the design
details discussed at preliminary. Specifically, signage for the conve-
nience store should be indicated both in table form and schematic Form.
Please show the dimensions of the low profile pedestal signs indicating
height, length, and width of both the pedestal area and sign area. Also,
indicate setback as measured from the new property line after any street
dedication. Also, indicate the dimensions of the wall sign, and spanner
board.
13. Note 13 on the Site Plan should add that the company logo will also not
be allowed on the gas canopy.
Horsetooth Commons C ients
May 21, 1987 - Page 3
14. In light of the recent experience with the store at Taft and Elizabeth
(canopy striping and ice machine logo), staff is particularly sensitive to
the client's use of the corporate color scheme. Please be aware that the
orange curbs or other colored appurtenant structures are dangerously close
to becoming signage. The client should be aware that the use of color
around the site will be scrutinized for its overall effect on the aesthetic
aspect of this PUD.
15. The architectural rendering for the convenience store is not specific
enough for a final submittal. Please specify materials and color for both
the store and the canopy. If the word "CONVENIENCE" should actually appear
as a separate element on the front elevations, then staff will feel obli-
gated to decrease signage elsewhere on the site. The subject of excess
signage was made very clear to all parties involved during the preliminary.
16. The landscape plan seems weighted heavily in favor of the shademaster
honeylocust. Perhaps the 26 honeylocusts could be reduced in number and
another species introduced. It is the opinion of the City Forester that
the honeylocust is overplanted and subject to disease. For your consider-
ation, the Kentucky Coffee is suggested.
17. Please indicate the approximate height of the berm.
18. The following note should be added to the landscape plan:
"A free (no charge) permit must be obtained from the City Forester
before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted,
pruned, or removed on the public right-of-way".
19. The following note should also be added to the landscape plan:
"Existing street trees along Horsetooth Road in the construction
zone will be relocated by the City Forestry Department to other
public property."
20. The construction of Richmond Drive and the accompanying street trees
should be more firmly tied to Phase One. Please include the following note
on both the site plan and landscape plan:
"The construction of Richmond Drive shall include the planting of
street trees placed at a minimum of 40' centers along the entire
length contained within the Horsetooth Commons PUD. The planting,
establishment, and maintenance of such street trees shall be the
responsibility of the developer."
21. The overall landscape plan is an improvement over previous submit-
tals. The location at the corner of two arterials is highly visible,
therefore the addition of shrub beds in the benned area would add quality
to the streetscape.
22. The water feature in front of the large retail building adds interest
to the site. Staff applauds this design element as it contributes to the
Forsetooth Commons C(- ants
May 21, 1987 - Page 4
overall character of the project.
23. The utility plans should include a soils report and justification for
the asphalt design. Also, a copy of the Traffic Study should be submitted
for a complete utility package.
24. Please show handicap access ramps for all street corners on the utility
plans.
25. Please show parking stalls with dimensions and ramps on the utility
plans.
26. The proposed center median in Horsetooth Road must be built by the
developer with 'Phase One. The design should be included in the utility
plans.
27. Pedestrian access would be enhanced by continuing to wrap the sidewalk
on Shields around the landscaping. This would allow pedestrians to walk in
a westerly direction without coming in conflict with vehicles in the access
drive.
28. Similarly, a sidewalk running north from Horsetooth Road along the east
edge of Phase IV would allow pedestrians to access the patio area [ram a
crosswalk rather than cut across the access drive.
This concludes staff comments at this time. Since this request is for
final approval, it is essential that the following deadlines be met and the
final documents be submitted to the City PRIOR TO the Planning and Zoning
Board Hearing. Specifically, please note:
Plan revisions are due June 3, 1987.
PMT's, 10 prints, and colored renderings are due June 15, 1987.
Final documents are due June 18, 1987.
Final documents include:
a. Signed rrylars of the plat
b. Signed nylars of the PUD site plan
c. Mylar sheets of the landscape plan and architectural renderings
d. Signed mylars of the utility plans
e. Signed development agreement
f. Signed site and landscape covenants
As always, please call if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Ted Shepard
Project Planner
TS/bh
DATE. 8-5-b ®EPARTMEi�T: lSTur.'rna,ti
ITEM:
Date
96-81I Horsetooth Commons Amended Master Plan
No Problems
Problems or Concerns (see below)
Signature