Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHUMAN BEAN AT SPRING CREEK - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2009-11-04LKTINA tr;ai!ic 3405 Harbor Way Fort Collins, CO 80524 Cn neerin ; G. a ncl phone: 970-988-0143 WILKINSON, trar,sportatinr; fax:970-472-0223 LLC .?lannin<; martinawilkin5onOrnsn.com M E M O R A N D U M Date: February 15, 2007 To: Troy Jones Shelby Sommer From: Martina Wilkinson, P.E. PTOE RE: Human Bean Questions posed by Planning and Zoning board members are shown in bold. City traffic staff responses are in italics, and additional information is shown below that. 1. Why doesn't the T.I.S. address stacking at the College access? Does City staff anticipate any issues with stacking at the proposed access? "At the time of the scoping for the TIS, it was not believed that stacking on South College would be a problem when considering the "double drive thru" and the set back from the roadway. The initial trip generation estimate actually put the level of TIS at "Memorandum " but we decided to also look at the background traffic for the short term horizon. If a stacking analysis is requested by the P&Z Board, then it would be prudent to pull the item from the agenda and allow the applicants traffic engineer to prepare the analysis for next month's meeting': It is important that the vehicles entering in the development (especially in the am peak hour) waiting for service do not stack into the roadway. The current design shows that there is stacking room on the property for at least 10 vehicles. Assuming 31 entering cars in the peak hour, and a very conservative 5 minute wait, that would be a total of 155 vehicle waiting minutes, or an average of less than two cars present at the ordering windows during the am peak. It is recognized the am traffic does not arrive entirely consistently, but with a safety margin of 5 fold, this appears adequate. The North College Human Bean did on occasion stack onto the roadway during the am peak prior to the reconstruction that allowed the double drive thru lane. Since the reconstruction which, like the proposed South College Human Bean, has significantly more storage available, the stacking doesn't appear to be an issue on College Avenue. 2. The trip generation data provided in the T.I.S. includes weekends (avg taken for 31 days) which, in the opinion of one P&Z Board member, would be relatively low volume days compared to weekdays. Therefore, true representative trip 000 Topic: Engineering Number: 84 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Clearly delineate the location of the existing water line along the front of the property in relation to the existing vegetation. Locate existing trees and shrubs accurately, including dripline of tree. Response: Please see revised landscape plan. Number: 85 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] The 18 inch storm pipe outfall -is that existing pipe to remain or new pipe. The existing tree next to the pipe may be impacted by the installation of a new pipe. Clarify outfall pipe and accurately show the type of tree and dripline so that it can be determined if this tree can be saved. If not, contact Tim Buchanan to discuss tree mitigation strategies. Section 3.2.1(F&G) have to be considered and addressed in locating any need pipe. Coordinate with Landscape Plans in regard to preservation or removal of this and any other trees on -site. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. We request a meeting in the field with Dana Levitt and Wes Lamarque to discuss whether or not the existing stormsewer outfall can be used. We would prefer to use the existing outfall to avoid disturbing the mature landscaping. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: General Number: 1 Created: 12/14/2006 [12/14/06] The following departments have indicated that they have no concerns with this proposal: GIS, Park Planning, Water Conservation, County Assessor. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 5 Created: 12/18/2006 [12/18/06] Rick Lee with the Building Department has attached the Current Building Codes and Standards that will be enforced with this proposal. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 8 Created: 12/19/2006 [12/19/06] Bonnie Ham (Growth Coordinator - US Postal Service): Developer must provide a mailbox in an agreed upon location. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Current Planning Topic: General Number: 53 Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Created: 1 /3/2007 Page 2 [1/3/07] General Note # 11, Cover Sheet refers to the Utility Plan for exact geometry of parking areas. Utility plans do not show any geometry or layout information. Provide complete layout information on Site Plan. Response: The parking space dimensions are now shown on the site plan. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 12 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Per Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(d) connecting walkways through parking lots shall have one canopy shade tree per 40 lineal feet of such walkway planted in landscape areas within 5 feet of such walkway. Since your proposed "connecting walkway" crosses the drive aisle and cannot feature any landscaping, please add a minimum of one canopy shade tree in the pedestrian/patio area adjacent to the building (if there is room) and/or add more canopy shade trees in the landscape area between the street and drive -through. Response: We have added another tree in the landscape area between the street and drive -through. Because it's proximity to a lighting pole, we have made this tree an ornamental. Number: 52 Created: 12/28/2006 [12/28/06] Please see the redlined landscape plan from Forestry for comments from Tim Buchanan. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 71 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Clearly show difference between existing and proposed conditions. Plant symbols do not stand out. Existing conditions that will be removed do not need to be shown. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Number: 72 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] Show lighting fixtures on Landscape Plan. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Number: 73 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Show all utilities on Landscape Plan so that conflicts between utilities and landscape materials can be identified and/or avoided. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Page 3 Number: 74 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Identify significant existing trees to remain and protect per Section 3.2.1(F&G) of the LUC. There are two trees along the College Ave. frontage to be considered and one tree off -site on the slope of the Spring Creek embankment adjacent to the existing/proposed storm drain pipe to be addressed. Proposed grading impacts both street side trees. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Number: 75 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Plant symbols are not shown at mature size. Use appropriately sized symbols consistently throughout plan. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Number: 76 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Use different species of tree and placement in front lawn area. Consider pedestrian plaza in planting scheme. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Number: 77 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Parking islands do not have sufficient plant materials. Shrubs and ground covers are more appropriate and require less maintenance than irrigated turf. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Number: 78 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] The proposed plant material along the south property line is not robust enough to provide an adequate buffer. Large openings in the buffer will occur where trees will be located. Additional plant materials in denser planting groups will provide the type of buffer described in your Request for Buffer Modification. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Number: 79 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] No seed mix or types of turf have been shown. The bottom of the water quality pond will need "water tolerant" grasses. Provide information to address this issue. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. In particular, see landscape note #5. Number: 80 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Surface drainage improvements are to be shown on the Landscape Plan. Page 4 Response: Please see the revised landscape plan. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Modification of Standard Number: 9 Created: 12/20/2006 [12/20/06] The justification for the modification of standard request to allow less than 5 feet of vehicular use area setback along the rear property line (Modification request #4) is not specific as to why you cannot satisfy the standard. Please clearly justify this modification request and show the dimensions of the proposed setback on the site plan. Response: Please see the revised modification request. Number: 11 Created: 12/20/2006 [12/20/06] Modification of Standards request #2 (vehicle use area between the building and street) and request #3 (locate the building more than 25 feet behind the right-of-way) should actually be submitted as a "Request for Exception to the Build - to Line Standards." Please refer to LUC Section 3.5.3(13)(2)(d) for the standards pertaining to build -to line exceptions. Your request will be evaluated per the proposal's conformance with these standard(s) and a modification of standard request will not be required if these alternative standards can be achieved. Response: Please see the submitted "request for exception to the build -to line standards." Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Modification of Standard Number: 54 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Summary of Request, Request For Buffer Modification states that a 45-50 foot buffer between Spring Creek and all vehicular circulation will be provided. The buffer is measured from top of embankment (Section 3.4.1(E) - Buffer Zone Table, Note 3.C). The buffer zone proposed is much less than the distance cited in the summary. This part of the request should be removed so that the summary statement is accurate. Response: Please see the revised buffer reduction request. Number: 55 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] Buffer Zone Standards 1.e response is in conflict with plans regarding the preservation of significant existing rees. Upon resolving grading, utility and landscape plan issues, this statement may need to be modified. If so, address. Response: Buffer zone standard 1(c) refers to existing trees, and has been revised accordingly. Please see the revised buffer reduction request. Page 5 Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Site Plan Number: 10 Created: 12/20/2006 [12/20/06] Please clearly label walk-up window, patio seating, sidewalk widths, Spring Creek, existing retaining wall, building dimensions, etc. Also, on the site and landscape plans please use different line weights and label existing features and proposed improvements, including existing trees, proposed light poles/fixtures etc. Response: Please see the revised site and landscape plans. Number: 48 Created: 12/28/2006 [12/28/06] How will pedestrians access the building safely from the proposed parking area (especially with handicap accessibility)? Perhaps you should continue the pedestrian crossing across both drive -through aisles. Response: Please see the revised site and landscape plans. Number: 49 Created: 12/28/2006 [12/28/06] The vault on the western edge of the site is not a Light & Power transformer. Please clearly identify and label. Can this be rotated to gain clearance? Response: Coordination of the relocation and/or realignment of this vault will be addressed during final compliance review. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Site Plan Number: 56 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Remove proposed grading contour lines from plan. Landscape Plan and Grading Plan sufficient. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 57 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Show all existing surface conditions and label. Show existing trees with canopy/dripline. Include driveway access and plant material at the north property boundary adjacent to College Ave. Show and label proposed improvements, i.e. asphalt or concrete pavement, type of walks, island surface, curb cuts, etc. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 58 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Difficult to read site plan - not enough clarity between existing conditions and proposed improvements. Proposed improvements need to stand out from the existing conditions. Recommend using a grey scale line type for existing conditions. Page 6 Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 59 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] Insufficient buffer along east property line. Unless turning radius templates preclude using a consistent outer traffic flowline, the parking lot edge can be offset a minimum of 5 feet per Section 3.2.2(J) of the LUC. Response: Please see the revised modification request. Number: 60 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Show traffic flow patterns through site, using flow arrows. Response: We're not sure what this has to do with natural resources, but please see the revised site plan. Number: 61 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] The parking bay is dimensioned to 19 feet. Upon measuring the depth, it appears to be 18 feet. Resolve deficiency. Response: We're not sure what this has to do with natural resources, but please see the revised site plan. The parking bay is 19 feet. Number: 62 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] The accessible parking space does not have accessible ramps/curb cuts or a "safe travel route" as noted by note #1, Cover Sheet. Integrate required elements into site design. Response: We're not sure what this has to do with natural resources, but please see the revised site plan. Number: 63 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Accessible parking space requires signage at the head of the stall. However, with the current layout, the sign is not protected from vehicles pulling into the parking stall and coming to a halt at the curbline. Resolve conflict. Response: We have added curb stops. Please see revised site and landscape plans. Number: 64 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] With all parking stalls ending at the curb line, which has less than 2 feet of overhang, there is less than 12' of clear travel lane in the drive -through lane. This conflict has to be resolved. Response: We propose to provide the required overhang by moving the parking spaces 2 feet towards the north. This will still provide the required drive aisle width. This detail will be addressed at final. Page 7 Number: 65 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] The existing fence located within the property along the east property line appears to be within one foot of the proposed back of curb line. Is the fence to remain or will it be removed and reinstalled? Provide information on type and height of fence. The fence has to meet the standards in Section 3.2.1(E.4) of the LUC. Response: The fence belongs to the neighbor. It's and existing 6 foot cedar fence. We don't propose to replace it. Number: 66 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] An existing storm drain is shown on the Site Plan. Remove. Show on Landscape Plan and on utilities plans. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 67 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] Show proposed light fixtures on Site Plan. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 68 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] Proposed sewer line needs to be shown on Landscaping Plan, not Site Plan. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 69 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] Hand railing shown on island next to building should extend further to direct pedestrians to cross driving lanes at pedestrian crossing. Response: Our thought was that the purpose of this rail is less to direct the pedestrians, and more of a safety barrier between the customers using the walk-up window at the time of ordering and the drive lanes. We would prefer not to extend this rail. Is this really a natural resources issue? Number: 70 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/3/07] Project description discusses a pedestrian plaza in the southwest corner of the site. With the water quality pond in this location, another location needs to be integrated into the design, linking College Ave. sidewalk and the coffee shop. Response: Please see the revised site and landscape plans. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number: 13 Created: 12/22/2006 Page 8 [12/22/06] Refer to the Cover sheet — Please add Stuart Street to the Vicinity Map. Move the Month and Year, updated, underneath the title. Provide benchmark data (2) to cover sheet per LCUASS Appendix E. Provide Geotechnical Engineers address and phone along with a reference to the latest soils report. Enlarge text as shown on the redlines for scanability. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 14 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Refer to the Plat — Please remove PDP from the title. Clearly show, label and dimension College Avenue ROW on the Plat, existing and proposed. Will need to provide a minimum of 141 feet of ROW for a 6-Lane arterial standard section (57.5 half ROW). Provide a copy of referenced document for ROW dedication on College Bk 1094, pg. 574. Show any off -site easements needed and label by separate document. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 15 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] A CDOT Access Permit will be required for this project. Per discussions with CDOT, a standard LCUASS driveway with radius curb on both sides will be required. Please clearly show both sides of proposed driveway curb cut and call out standard driveway with a detail added to the detail sheets. Any additional ROW or off -site easements must be dedicated if needed to construct the driveway to standard. Response: Acknowledged. A meeting was held with City staff and CDOT concerning this project, so CDOT is aware of the proposed access. The driveway has been revised and an access easement will be provided via separate instrument. Number: 16 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please add the City standard street cut note, attached to red -lines, on the Utility Plan sheet. A street cut may be needed for the driveway construction as determined by the City inspector in the field. Response: No street cuts for utilities are proposed with the project. We believe the driveway entrance can be constructed without disturbing the paving in College, however this detail will be further addressed at final. If still needed, the note will be added to the plans at that time. Number: 17 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Solid rectangular black boxes are showing on the Utility Plan sheet. Please correct and clarify what these are. Response: Our apologies, this was a plotting error and has been addressed. Page 9 Number: 18 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please use heavy solid line for proposed improvements and a lighter weighted line, ghosted line, for existing improvements on the site. Label existing items to be removed. See redlines for clarification. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 19 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Clearly show, label and dimension the limits of ROW for College Ave. on the Utility Plan sheet and Grading Plan sheet. Existing and proposed. Response: The western ROW was not identified by the project surveyor. The ROW is approximately 100' wide in this location. Number: 20 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please show and label any existing buildings or improvements within 50 feet of the site on all 3 sides. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 21 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please show and label any off -site easements needed by separate document on the Utility Plan and Grading Plan sheets. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 22 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please show the existing rip rap pad at the SD outfall on the Utility and Grading Plan sheets. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 23 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] No less than four feet (4) of sidewalk maybe added to an existing sidewalk per City Code. The sidewalk on College Ave. must be removed and replaced to a sufficient width to satisfy Transportation Planning staff. Please contact David Averill with Transportation Planning for minimum sidewalk width, attached or detached, along College Avenue. Please clearly show and label the limits of new proposed sidewalk and connections to existing sidewalk to the north and south. Response: The attached sidewalk has been revised to be 9 feet wide in accordance with David's comments. This requires widening the existing sidewalk 4.5'. Number: 24 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please show the high point, grade break line at the entrance. No more than 750 square feet of paved surface shall drain over the sidewalk, driveway approach. Page 10 Response: Acknowledged. Number: 25 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please use different line weights for existing and proposed grading topo. Rotate all upside down contour elevations. Correct any overlapping text that will not scan well. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 26 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please show and label all storm drain pipe elevations at inlets, outlets and bend points. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 27 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] Please add a LCUASS standard commercial driveway detail to the detail sheets. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 28 Created: 12/22/2006 [12/22/06] See Site Plan comments on redlines. Response: See revised site plans. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Susan Joy Topic: Plat Number: 40 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] From Technical Services: Plat closes, area checks, legal matches. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 41 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] From Technical Services: There is an exception to lots 7 & 8 and this plat only is involved with portions of those lots. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 42 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] From Technical Services: Is a utility easement needed on the north portion of lot 1 across the emergency and access easements? Response: Utility easements have been added to the plat. Page 11 -w generation averages may be skewed and should be higher. Basically, the Board member would like to see the 31 day average calculated without the weekends included. Given any change in the average trip generation calculation (higher ADT), how will this change the design requirements of this project? Will a higher ADT warrant the need for a right turn lane to the site or an accel/decel lane? "There are not many samples from which to draw estimates for a drive-thru coffee shop. The applicant's engineer used ITE information and a variety of other sources and all are consistent. I do not believe that recalculating the trip generation is going to make much, if any difference in the analysis. As for the right turn lane, there are three overriding issues that would prevent the construction of a right tum lane. First, LUCASS, Table 8-4 does not require a right turn lane on 6 lane arterials until the right turn volume exceeds 200 vehicles. Second, the State Highway Access Code does not require right turn deceleration on a 40 mph facility until the volume exceeds 50 vehicles. Finally, there is approximately 50 feet between the driveway and Spring Creek that would prevent the construction of a right turn lane". As Eric noted, the TIS drew from a number of sources for trip generation data. Both the ITE information as well as the Oregon data were for weekdays only, and is consistent with the assumed trip generation for this study. In addition, by reviewing the auxiliary lane warrants, the trip generation could be significantly higher (60% higher) before the warrant for an auxiliary lane is met. 3. Finally, the T.I.S. does not include any background traffic analysis for the access to the Human Bean site. This property was owned, divided and sold by the Eye Care Center next door so it seems reasonable that this existing access point was and will continue to be used by the Eye Center customers since they will be able to access the Eye Center parking lot from the Human Bean access. Additionally, the Eye Center customers may also use the Human Bean parking spaces unless certain parking restriction signage and enforcement is implemented. Basically, it is the Board members opinion that the eye center trip generation (or a reasonable portion of it) should be included in the analysis of the Human Bean access and trip generation average calculations. "The Board member is correct that the analysis did not include the background traffic from the Eye Center. The Eye Center does not open until 9: 00am which is outside the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour trip generation of the coffee shop is so low that it appears to be insignificant" Again, as noted above, there is quite a bit of capacity in the turning volumes before turn lane warrants are met. In fact, there is enough capacity that the entire Vision Eyeland center's ITE trip generation (which does assume some am peak hour trips) could be added and the CDOT warrant for a lane would still not be met. 000 Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine Topic: Electric Utility Number: 6 Created: 12/18/2006 [12/18/06] Plat needs to show a 10 ft. utility easement along the east and west sides of the property. Response: Utility easements have been added to the plat. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 7 Created: 12/18/2006 [12/18/06] The electric system shown near College Ave. on the landscape plan sheet 3 of 4 is not correct (these facilities do not exist as shown). There are a couple of options concerning provision of electric service. The nearest existing electric transformer is at the rear of the Vision Eyeland building. This transformer is 120/208 volt 3 phase. In order for this transformer to be the power source to the Human Bean, there will need to be an off -site easement from the transformer to the lot line of the Human Bean for installation of the electric service (by owner). The 2nd option is to tap the existing underground 13,800 volt power line along the eastern end of this lot and install a new electric vault and pad type transformer (at a cost of appx. $9,000.00 plus normal electric development charges). In this case, a location for the new vault & transformer would need to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering. However there appears to be no available location for this electrical equipment. For both options, normal electric development charges plus electric system modification costs will be charged to the developer. The developer will need to coordinate power requirements and costs with Light & Power Engineering (221-6700). Response: We propose to connect to the existing transformer behind the Vision Eyeland. A utility easement will be provided by separate instrument. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carie Dann Topic: Fire Number: 37 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] REQUIRED ACCESS: A fire lane is required. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements: C Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites. G Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable. Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. Page 12 ❑ Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane. If a fire lane cannot be provided, the building shall be fire sprinklered. 97UFC 901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1 Response: Acknowledged. Our proposed fire lane does all this. Number: 38 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter. These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 97UFC 901.2.2.2 Response: No additional fire hydrants are needed for the project, as per discussions at the review meeting. Number: 39 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] ADDRESS NUMERALS: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch (6) numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable).97UFC 901.4.4 Response: Acknowledged. Department: Traffic Operations Topic: Traffic Number: 29 [12/22/06] The TIS is acceptable Response: Acknowledged. Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Created: 12/22/2006 Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewaterlssue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Floodp/ain Number: 43 Created: 12/27/2006 [12/27/06] 1. It appears a very small portion of the site is located in the Spring Creek 100-year floodplain. It is in the flood fringe, not the floodway. Please modify the report to reflect this. 2. The City floodplain map included in the report has now been officially adopted by FEMA, therefore there is a new map panel number. Please use FIRM Panel 08069C0987F, Community number 080102 in the report and include the attached copy of the new map. Page 13 3. From the plan it appears some landscaping will occur in the floodplain. This is allowed in the flood fringe. Please include a note in both the report and the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan: An approved Floodplain Use Permit is required prior to the start of any construction or site improvements in the floodplain. 4. Please draw and label the floodplain line on the plat, drainage plan and landscaping plan. We do not yet have the digital version of the new FEMA map, however, you can use the City floodplain line since the two should be one and the same. 5. Floodplain Admin. Contact: Susan Hayes, 416-2233. Response: This will be addressed at final, as discussed at the review meeting. We are retaining the stormwater redlines for now, and will include them with the first final submittal. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewaterlssue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 36 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] Revise notes on required separation distances as noted on the redlined plan. Response: Please see revised site plan notes. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewaterlssue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Stormwater Number: 44 Created: 12/27/2006 [12/27/06] Since a new outlet pipe will be used, the outfall needs to meet current standards. This may include additional erosion protection and realignment of the outfall pipe to enter Spring Creek more in parallel with flows. Response: As discussed at the review meeting, a field meeting will be set up with staff to evaluate the existing condition. This will be addressed at final. We are retaining the stormwater redlines for now, and will include them in the first final submittal. Number: 45 Created: 12/27/2006 [12/27/06] Please revise water quality outlet structure detail to the current City standard. I can email an electronic copy to you. Response: This will be addressed at final, as discussed at the review meeting. We are retaining the stormwater redlines for now, and will include them in the first final submittal. Number: 46 Created: 12/27/2006 [12/27/06] Please label storm sewer on the Drainage Plan including size, length, and type. Page 14 Response: This will be addressed at final, as discussed at the review meeting. We are retaining the stormwater redlines for now, and will include them in the first final submittal. Number: 47 Created: 12/27/2006 [12/27/06] Please include a basin and a water quality pond summary table on the Drainage Plan. Response: This will be addressed at final, as discussed at the review meeting. We are retaining the stormwater redlines for now, and will include them in the first final submittal. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewaterlssue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic; WaterMastewater Number: 30 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] Coordinate water service location with landscaping to provide minimum separation distances. Response: Acknowledged. The water service has been placed to minimize disturbance to the existing vegetation. Number: 31 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] Add notes at connection of sewer service to existing MH to core drill opening in MH and to re -shape bench to channelize flow. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 32 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] Show curb stop on water service. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 33 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] On overall utility plan, label sewer service clean -out as traffic rated. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 34 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] Include correct detail for 3/4-inch meter pit. Response: Acknowledged. Number: 35 Created: 12/26/2006 [12/26/06] Provide evidence of a recorded easement from the property to the north to this property for the offsite portion of the sewer service. Page 15 Response: This utility easement will be provided by separate instrument Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: Zoning Number: 2 Created: 12/15/2006 [12/15/06] The walk-up window should be labeled on the site plan. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 3 Created: 12/15/2006 [12/15/06] If there is going to be outdoor seating, then please show the location of where this will be. Will it be the patio in the front of the building ( I assume it's a patio since it's not labeled) or will it be elsewhere? Response: Please see the revised site and landscape plan. Number: 4 Created: 12/15/2006 [12/15/06] Label dimensions of building footprint on site plan. Response: Please see revised site plan. Page 16 ;Rand Maizland - Human Bean S nn Creek Pa e 1 „ .., P From: Eric Bracke To: Randy Maizland Date: 2/12/2007 10:33:42 AM Subject: Human Bean - Spring Creek Randy, The following are the answers to the questions posed by Ms. Rollins, 1. Why doesn't the TIS address stacking at the College access ? Apparently, the North College Human Bean has generated complaints about cars stacked out into the street almost causing an accident every day. She wants the TIS to address and anylize the stacking at peak hours. This department has not witnessed or recieved any complaints regarding the Human Bean on North College. At the time of the scoping for the TIS, it was not beleived that stacking on South College would be a problem when considering the "double drive thru" and the set back from the roadway. The initial trip generation estimate actually put the level of TIS at "Memorandum" but we decided to also look at the background traffic for the short term horizon. If a stacking analysis is requested, then it would be prudent to pull the item from the agenda and allow the applicants traffic engineer to prepare the analysis for next month's meeting. 2. The trip generation data provided includes weekends (avg taken for 31 days) which she feels are very low volume days, therefor, she feels the averages are skewed and should be higher. Basically, she wants to see the 31 day average calculated without the weekends included to get a more accurate number to verify a right turn lane/accel lane is not warranted for this project. Again I reference the N. College location problems. There are not many samples from which to draw estimates for a drive-thru coffee shop. The applicant's engineer used ITE information and a variety of other sources and all our consistent. I do not believe that recalculating the trip generation is going to make much, if any difference in the analysis. As for the right turn lane, there are three overriding issues that would prevent the construction of a right turn lane. First, LUCASS, Table 84 does not require a right turn lane on 6 lane arterials until the right turn volume exceeds 200 vehicles. Second, the State Highway Access Code does not require right turn deceleration on a 40 mph facility until the volume exceeds 50 vehicles. Finally, there is approximately 50 feet between the driveway and Spring Creek that would prevent the construction of a right turn lane. 3. finally, The TIS does not include any background traffic analysis for the access to the Human Bean site. This property was owned, divided and sold by the Eye Center next door so it seams reasonable that this existing access point was and will continue to be used by the Eye Center customers since they will be able to access the Eye center parking lot from the Human Bean access still and the Eye Center customers may even use the Human Bean parking spaces. Basically, she feels that the eye center trip generation (or a reasonable portion of it) should be included in the analysis of the Human Bean access and trip generation average calculations. Ms. Rollins is correct that the analysis did not include the background traffic from the Eye Center. The Eye Center does not open until 9:00 which is outside the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour trip generation of the coffee shop is slow low that it didn't matter. Let me know if you have additional questions. Eric Randy Maizland Human Bean 7 Spring Creek Pag Kind Regards, Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E. City Traffic Engineer (970)224-6062 ebracke@fcgov.com CC: Martina G. Wilkinson; Ward Stanford December 1, 2006 City of Fort Collins Planning & Zoning Board 281 North College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Subject: Request for Modifications for Human Bean at Spring Creek PDP Dear Planning and Zoning Board, Background The Human Bean coffee drive thru is an approximately 499 square foot drive-in restaurant proposed at 1822 South College Avenue. Business is conducted by providing drivers to order, pay and receive coffee and limited food items while remaining in their vehicle. The driver also has the option of parking the vehicle and using a walk up window to receive their product. The drive -up window is the primary means of service for this use. The vehicular circulation and site use allow the driver to enter and exit the site from a single access point along the South College Street frontage. The Colorado Department of Transportation has determined that the existing right-in/right-out drive cut that currently serves the site from South College Avenue will be allowed to remain and continue to serve the site. The driver has the option of using one of two drive -up lanes located on either side of the building. Once the driver reaches the window, the driver orders, pays and receives their product. The driver then exits the site through the single point of access. Two drive -up windows are provided for the driver to limit the wait time for ordering. The Modifications Modification #1) We propose to be allowed to have a main entrance that does not open and face directly onto a street sidewalk. Modification #2) We propose to have a vehicle use area located between the building and the street. Modification #3) We propose to locate the building more than 25 feet behind the right-of- way along College Avenue. Modification #4) We propose to provide less than 5 feet of vehicular use area setback along the rear property line. Justification of Modifications. The site's access point along S. College Avenue, a physical condition of the site, limits the owner's ability to provide a dedicated "entrance only" and "exit only" access onto the subject property. The Colorado Department of Transportation dictates a single point of access to the site and thus limits the ability to provide the "connecting walkway" where "pedestrian -oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street" can exist. A second physical condition of the site is its narrowness. The narrowness of the site limits the ability to provide turning movements such that a vehicle cannot maneuver to avoid crossing the "connecting walkway." The site is approximately 97 feet in width north to south. For compliance with the standards, the applicant proposes a design that addresses these issues as follows: a) Where the walkway crosses the vehicle use area, the walkway will be delineated with colored concrete; b) Signs will be posted to warn vehicle users to yield to pedestrians; c) Pedestrian lighting will be provided; d) Landscaping will be provided to allow an unobstructed view between the driver and the pedestrian; e) Bicycle facilities will be provided; f) The walkway connects directly to the patio seating area and to the walkup window. Modification Procedure. Section 2.8.2 of the Land Use Code allows the Planning and Zoning Board to grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that; " by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exWtional situations unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant. " Code Language — #1) Section 3.5.3(B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking, Subsection (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway states: 2 "At least one (1) main entrance of any commercial or mixed -use building shall face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. Any building which has only vehicle bays and/or service doors for intermittent/infrequent nonpublic access to equipment, storage or similar rooms (e.g. self-service car washes and self -serve mini -storage warehouses) shall be exempt from this standard. " Article 5 of the LUC defines connecting walkway as: "Connecting walkway shall mean (1) any street sidewalk or (2) any walkway that directly connects a main entrance of a building to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or around parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route. " #2) Subsection 3.5.3(B)(2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings states: "Build -to lines based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street sidewalk shall be established by development projects for new buildings and, to the extent reasonably feasible, by development projects for additions or modifications of existing buildings, in order to form visually continuous, pedestrian -oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street. " #3) Subsection 3.5.3(B)(2)(c) goes on to say: "Buildings shall be located at least 10 and no more than 25 feet behind the street right -of way of an adjoining street that is larger than a two-lane arterial that does not have on -street parking. " #4) Subsection 3.2.2(H) Setbacks for vehicular use areas states: "Any vehicular use area containing 6 or more parking spaces or 1800 or more square feet shall be set back from the street right-of-way and the side and rear yard lot line (except a lot line between buildings or uses with collective parking) consistent with the provisions of this Section, according to the following table: " Minimum average of Minimum width of entire landscaped setback at any one setback area feet oint(feet) Along an arterial 15 S street Along a non -arterial 10 S street Along a lot line 5 1 5 Response to Comments 2/21 /2007 HUMAN BEAN AT SPRING CREEK PDP ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Elevations Number: 83 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Dimension counter height or add note that walk up window shall meet accessibility requirements. Will address at final. [113/07] Walk-up window will have to be accessible. Indicate on elevations with dimensioning which service window is accessible. Response: The counter height is now dimensioned on the building elevations. Number: 94 Created: 1 /23/2007 [1/23/07] Trash enclosure dimensions at 14'-3" on the Site Plan. The elevation shows the dimension to be 9'-4". Resolve conflicting information and revise plans accordingly. Will be addressed at final. Response: The trash enclosure is now sized the same on both the site plan and the elevations. Topic: Engineering Number: 84 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] The utility plan shows an existing evergreen plant symbol adjacent to the water line. The Site and Landscape Plan do not show this tree/shrub. Will address at final. [1/3/07] Clearly delineate the location of the existing water line along the front of the property in relation to the existing vegetation. Locate existing trees and shrubs accurately, including dripline of tree. Response: The evergreen in question was inadvertently shown, but it does not actually exist. We have removed all references to it. Number: 85 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] A meeting is needed as suggested in the response to comments. The Utility Plan calls for a new 18" storm drain line in place of the existing one. Replacing the line will have impacts upon the tree next to the location of the existing line. This tree is on City property. Tim Buchanan will need to be party to the site visit. Will resolve at final. [1/3/07] The 18 inch storm pipe outfall -is that existing pipe to remain or new pipe. The existing tree next to the pipe may be impacted by the installation of a new pipe. Clarify outfall pipe and accurately show the type of tree and dripline so that it can be determined if this tree can be saved. If not, contact Tim Buchanan to discuss tree mitigation strategies. Section 3.2.1(F&G) have to be considered and addressed in locating any need pipe. Coordinate with Landscape Plans in regard to preservation or removal of this and any other trees on -site. Response: On January 29, 2007 representatives of QED and MTA met with Shelby Sommer, Wes Lamarque, Dana Leavitt, and Tim Buchanen in the field to discuss the trees and drainage outfall. Collectively we agreed that the best solution was to leave the existing riprap blanket intact, abandon the existing storm drain in place, and align a new storm drainage pipe between existing trees to outfall in the same location as the existing pipe, but to be buried in alignment with the riprap. In this way, existing trees on City property will be minimally affected. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Exception Request Number: 87 Created: 1/19/2007 [1/19/07] For the exception to the build -to line request you state that this proposal satisfies the standard better than a compliant plan. Staff cannot support that this alternative is better, but would support justification that this alternative complies with the standard equally as well as a compliant plan. Also, your justification for the exception includes a statement that you will post signs and provide pedestrian lighting. Please include this on the site plan or remove this from your justification statement. Response: The revised build -to line exception request was provided and was approved as part of the PDP approval on 2/ 15/2007. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: General Number: 53 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] While you show dimensioning on the Site Plan, the utility plans contain no geometric layout of parking areas is shown. Will this be part of the final package submitted by the civil engineer? If not, remove note. Page 1 Suggested Findings. a) Granting the requested modifications would not be detrimental to the public good because the sidewalk will be distinctly colored where it crosses the vehicular drive, plantings will be low to ensure pedestrian -driver safety and cautionary signage will be placed to maximize safety; and b) There are exceptional physical conditions unique to this property; including narrowness and CDOT access limitations which hinder the owner's ability to meet the strict application of these standards; We sincerely appreciate your consideration in this matter, and look forward to discussing the merits of the request as part of the Type 2 hearing. incere y, T o W. es A.. P. Chi er A T rgerson Arc ' ects n Conceptual Review Comment Responses - Human Bean at Spring Creek P.D.P. ITEM: Construction of a drive-thru coffee shop at 1820 S. College Avenue. MEETING DATE: March 21, 2005 APPLICANT: MTA LAND USE DATA: A request to develop a drive -up coffee shop (The Human Bean) on 0.29 acres at 1820 S. College Ave (Vision Eyeland Parking Lot). The property is within the City of Fort Collins and is currently zoned C, Commercial District. The following City of Fort Collins departments have offered comments for this proposal. Zoning Contact Info: 1. Use as a drive-thru restaurant is permitted in the C District, subject to a Type II review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Response: Acknowledged. Engineering Contact Info: Marc Virata, 221-6606, mvirata@fcgov.com 1. Street Oversizing fees may apply to this development. Contact Matt Baker at 224-6108 or mbaker@fcgov.com for more information. Response: Acknowledged. 2. A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is required for this project. Please contact Eric Bracke in Transportation Planning at 224-6062 for further information. Response: We have provided a TIS with this submittal 3. A fifteen -foot utility easement is required along all arterial street frontages. College Ave. requires a total right-of-way width of 141 feet, or 70.5 feet for half of the right-of-way. Response: We have met with CDOT, Engineering, and Eric Bracke, and have addressed this issue in the submittal. 4. No left turn out to College Ave. is permitted. Response: Acknowledged. 5. May need to close 1 access point to College Ave. (probably the North access point) as determined by CDOT. A Cross Access Easement may be required. Response: We have met with CDOT, Engineering, and Eric Bracke, and it has been determined that because the Vision Eyeland property and the Human Bean property have two different property owners, and each of the properties has it's own access drive, neither will be required to be closed. 6. Driveway radii are subject to CDOT standards, and may require an Access Permit. Response: Acknowledged. 7. A detached sidewalk and offsite pedestrian access to the South may be required. Response: We have accommodated this comment to the extent reasonably feasible. 8. Applicant is responsible for undergrounding any existing overhead lines. Response: There are no existing overhead lines on the project site. 9. All public improvements need to be made in accordance with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) Response: All public improvements have been made in accordance with LCUASS as required. 10. Applicant is responsible for repairing or replacing any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalks on the property. Response: The existing curb, gutter and sidewalks adjacent to the site appear to be in serviceable condition. 11. Utility plans, a Development Agreement, a Development Construction Permit and a Subdivision Plat are required for this development proposal. Response: Please see the submittal for the utility plans and plat. After approval, we look forward to working through the DA and DCP. Light and Power Contact Info: Janet McTague, 224-6154, jmctaguWcgov.com 1. The applicant is responsible for the installation of secondary service from the existing transformer to the new building/meter location. The new service needs to be located in a utility easement. Response: The plat will provide easement for this connection. 2. Added KVA and system modification charges, if necessary, will apply to this project. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Once you have calculated your additional load needs, give Janet a call to see if modifications need to be made for an additional transformer. Response: Acknowledged. This will be accomplished during final design. Stormwater Utility Contact Info: Glen Schlueter, 221-6700, gschlueter@fcgov.com 1. This site is in the Spring Creek drainage basin where the new development fee is $2175.00/acre which is it is subject to the runoff coefficient reduction. This fee is to be paid at the time a building permit is issued. This applies only if there is an increase in imperviousness greater than 350 square feet. Response: Acknowledged. The site is mostly already paved, therefore we aren't going to increase the impervious area, in fact, we are reducing it. 2. If there is an increase in imperviousness greater than 1000 square feet a drainage and erosion control report and construction plans are required and they must be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in Colorado. A grading plan is required when there is between 1000 and 350 square feet of new imperviousness, but no drainage study. A grading plan is required for this site. Response: Acknowledged 3. A letter report may be sufficient for a drainage study if the existing and proposed drainage patterns do not change. If curb and gutter is added that concentrates the flow, an offsite easement to Spring Creek would be required as well as stabilization of the outfall into the creek. Response: We intend to keep the existing drainage patterns the same with the exception of adding a water quality structure. The existing paving on site is drained through piping to an existing outfall in Spring Creek. The outfall is in a stable condition and is not proposed to be disturbed. 4. There is an existing inlet on College Ave. that could be used as an outlet for the drainage. Response: Acknowledged. Water Wastewater Contact Info: Roger Buffington, 221-6864, rbuffington@fcgov.com 1. Water and sewer will need to be provided to the building. This will need to be separate from the existing services to the site. Response: New water and sewer services have been proposed in the submittal. 2. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Response: Acknowledged. Transportation Planning Contact Info: Kurt Ravenschlag, kravenschiag@fcgov.com 1. A direct pedestrian connection must be provided from the building entrance to the adjacent street sidewalk. This walk may not cross any vehicle drive aisles or parking areas. Response: See the attached modification request. 2. Bicycle parking will need to be provided in a convenient location adjacent to the building entrance. Response: We have provided convenient bicycle parking in the PDP submittal. 3. A pedestrian connection to the Spring Creek trail system may be required. Response: We are connecting to the existing sidewalk of College Avenue that crosses the College Avenue Bridge, which connects to the Spring Park Drive sidewalk, which merges with the Spring Creek trail, thereby satisfying this comment. We had a follow up conversation with Kurt Ravenschlag, and he agreed using the existing College Avenue sidewalk is the only viable solution. Natural Resources Contact Info: Doug Moore, 224-6143, dmoore@fcgov.com 1. Nearly the entire site is within the Spring Creek buffer zone. This will need to be addressed before development can occur. Refer to Division 4.3.1 of the Land Use Code for buffer and natural area requirements. Response: We have met several times with Doug Moore to discuss this issue. Please see the submitted request for buffer zone reduction. 2. The Preble's Jumping Mouse may have habitat on the site. Contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Peter Plage) for more information. Response: We have conducted multiple inspections of the site, and have discovered no mice of any kind. 3. A trash and recycling enclosure must be provided on the site. Response: We have included a trash and recycling enclosure as required. Current Planning Contact Info: Shelby Sommer, 221-6760, ssommer@fcgov.com 1. This development proposal is subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), specifically Article 3 General Development Standards, and Division 4.17 Commercial District. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Handicap parking must be provided on the site. Refer to Division 3.2.2(K)(5) of the Land Use Code for handicap parking requirements. Response: We have provided one handicap parking space as required. 3. The entire Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) is available for your review on the web at hftp://www.colocode-com/ftcollins/landuse/beain.htm Response: Acknowldeged. 4. Contact me if you have any questions about the code requirements or submittal requirements. Response: We've already contacted you, and will continue to contact you as necessary. 5. You will need to set up an appointment to submit your application. Please call me at 221-6750 to schedule your appointment. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Response: Acknowledged. Soils Report Human Bean at Spring Creek P.D.P. We are not proposing any street or alley improvements, therefore it is our understanding that we may not need a soils report. In the event that it is needed, it is our understanding that it would be subject to final compliance review. [1/3/07] General Note # 11, Cover Sheet refers to the Utility Plan for exact geometry of parking areas. Utility plans do not show any geometry or layout information. Provide complete layout information on Site Plan. Response: General layout and dimensioning for the parking and drive aisles has been added to the Utility Plan. Number: 101 Created: 1/25/2007 [1/25/07] To meet the standards of Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(c) the lighting plan will need to address the amount of light spilling over along the buffer zone. Back shield screens have to be part of the pole mount fixtures. Response: Please see the revised lighting plan. Topic: Landscape Plan Number: 71 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] The existing and proposed conditions can be differentiated now. The proposed planting symbols do not stand out from the rest of the plan. Will address at final. [1/3/07] Clearly show difference between existing and proposed conditions. Plant symbols do not stand out. Existing conditions that will be removed do not need to be shown. Response: Existing trees to remain are now shown in a lighter pen width than proposed trees. Additionally existing trees are labeled as such. Number: 74 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Trees are identified. Tree protection standards - Section 3.2.1(G) are not included on the plan. Add to the plan. Will address at final. (1/3/07] Identify significant existing trees to remain and protect per Section 3.2.1(F&G) of the LUC. There are two trees along the College Ave. frontage to be considered, and one tree off -site on the slope of the Spring Creek embankment adjacent to the existing/proposed storm drain pipe to be addressed. Proposed grading impacts both street side trees. Response: The tree protection standards have been added to the landscape notes as note # 14. Number: 78 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] The planting plan shows a single row of plants along the majority of the landscape buffer. Additional plantings are needed to create a visual and physical buffer and establish a viable wildlife habitat in this area. [1/3/07] The proposed plant material along the south property line is not robust enough to provide an adequate buffer. Large openings in the buffer will occur where trees will be located. Additional plant materials in denser planting groups will provide the type of buffer described in your Request for Buffer Modification. Response: Please see the revised landscape plan Number: 95 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] The parking island is only as wide as two curb widths. The planting plan shows plant material in this very narrow area. There is not enough room to have a plant bed in this area. Response: This area has been widened out. Please see revised site & landscape plans. Number: 96 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] The tree well shown on the Site Plan is next to the accessible ramp. A tree grate that meets ADA standards will need to be used to provide a solid surface so that disabled pedestrians can have a safe travel route from the curb cut to the sidewalk. Response: We have added a leader to the tree grate clarifying that it meet ADA standards. Number: 102 Created: 1/25/2007 [1/25/07] Plaza and existing tree are in conflict. The paving around the tree needs to be pulled back as it is too close to the tree. Tree protection standards 3.2.(G)1. A redesign of the plaza is required to protect the existing significant tree. Will be addressed at final. Response: The plaza has been re -designed to be pulled back from the existing significant tree. Number: 103 Created: 1/25/2007 [1/25/07] The three shrubs on the south edge of the plaza are within the stated separation between utilities and plant material of 4 feet. Move shrubs to create required separation. Will be addressed at final. Response: The shrubs have been reconfigured as requested. Number: 104 Created: 1/25/2007 [1/25/07] Note #12 states that all trees shall be installed as shown on the landscape plan. Show planting details for trees and shrubs on Landscape Plan. Will be addressed at final. Response: See the planting details, now on the landscape plan. Page 2 Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Modification of Standard Number: 9 Created: 12/20/2006 [1/19/07] The modification request to reduce the rear setback still cannot be supported by staff. Can you revise the plans to have at least a 5 foot setback on the north side of the east property line, and request a modification just for the area adjacent to the drive-thru lanes? [12/20/06] The justification for the modification of standard request to allow less than 5 feet of vehicular use area setback along the rear property line (Modification request #4) is not specific as to why you cannot satisfy the standard. Please clearly justify this modification request and show the dimentions of the proposed setback on the site plan. Response: We withdrew this modification request and simply provided the 5 feet as required. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Modification of Standard Number: 55 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23107] The tree in question is on city property next to the storm drain line to be replaced. Part of the proposed on -site meeting will be to discuss the drainage outfall. Will be resolved at final. [1/3/07] Buffer Zone Standards 1.e response is in conflict with plans regarding the preservation of significant existing trees. Upon resolving grading, utility and landscape plan issues, this statement may need to be modified. If so, address. Response: On January 29, 2007 representatives of QED and MTA met with Shelby Sommer, Wes Lamarque, Dana Leavitt, and Tim Buchanen in the field to discuss the trees and drainage outfall. Collectively we agreed that the best solution was to leave the existing riprap blanket intact, abandon the existing storm drain in place, and align a new storm drainage pipe between existing trees to outfall in the same location as the existing pipe, but to be buried in alignment with the riprap. In this way, existing trees on City property will be minimally affected. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Site Plan Number: 49 Created: 12/28/2006 [1/19/07] Please address this issue at the Final Plan stage. [12/28/06] The vault on the western edge of the site is not a Light & Power transformer. Can this be rotated to gain clearance? Response: This is a City traffic control vault. The vault will be replaced with a traffic rated vault, as per discussions with city traffic staff. Number: 86 Created: 1 /19/2007 [1/19/07] 1 believe there is a bus stop in front of this property. Please verify and label on the site plan. Also, your cover page indicates that only 2 bicycle parking spaces are provided, but on your site plan there appears to be 8 bicycle parking spaces. Please correct. Response: Please see the revised site plan and cover page. Number: 88 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] The handicap accessible parking space needs to be van -accessible (8 feet wide with 8 foot wide access aisle). Your site plan shows a regular handicap accessible space that is only 13 feet wide. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Number: 90 Created: 1 /23/2007 [1/23/07] Several of the written documents reference the existing 6 foot privacy fence along the eastern property line, but it is not shown on the site plan. Please revise. Response: Please see the revised site plan. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Site Plan Number: 57 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Site Plan calls out asphalt pavement and the utility plans call out concrete pavement. Will be resolved at final. [1/3/07] Show all existing surface conditions and label. Show existing trees with canopy/dripline. Include driveway access and plant material at the north property boundary adjacent to College Ave. Show and label proposed improvements, i.e. asphalt or concrete pavement, type of walks, island surface, curb cuts, etc. Response: The utility plan is correct. The site plan no longer says it's asphalt. Number: 58 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Existing conditions are not shown on plan. Add information to plan. [1/3/07] Difficult to read site plan - not enough clarity between existing conditions and proposed improvements. Proposed improvements need to stand out from the existing conditions. Recommend using a grey scale line type for existing conditions. Page 3 Response: Please see the revised site and landscape plans Number: 59 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Comment that turning radii have been carefully calculated only pertains to the area immediately to the east of the drive trough lanes. The remainder of the curbline can be shifted to meet the 5 foot buffer requirement. [1/3/07] Insufficient buffer along east property line. Unless turning radius templates preclude using a consistent outer traffic flowline, the parking lot edge can be offset a minimum of 5 feet per Section 3.2.2(J) of the LUC. Response: We are now providing the five feet of buffer. Number: 61 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] The depth of the parking bay is measured from the face of curb as you depict it, but the 19 foot depth extends beyond the face of the curb line at the open end of the parking bay. Will resolve at final. [1/3/07] The parking bay is dimensioned to 19 feet. Upon measuring the depth, it appears to be 18 feet. Resolve deficiency. Response: Please see revised site and landscape plans. Number: 64 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07) Will be addressed at final. [1/3/07] With all parking stalls ending at the curb line, which has less than 2 feet of overhang, there is less than 12' of clear travel lane in the drive -through lane. This conflict has to be resolved. Response: We have widened out this area between the parking and that travel lane. Please see revised site and landscape plan. Number: 69 Created: 1/3/2007 [1/23/07] Will address at final. [1/3/07] Hand railing shown on island next to building should extend further to direct pedestrians to cross driving lanes at pedestrian crossing. Response: See the revised site plan. Number: 98 Created: 1 /24/2007 [1/24/07] The bike parking is shown partially on the turf area. To minimize impacts to the turf provide paved surface for entire bike parking area. Response: We are thinking that the usage of the bicycle parking spaces will be infrequent enough that the turf will be about to withstand the amount of usage. Number: 99 Created: 1 /25/2007 [1/25/07] There is an existing curb ramp into the Visionland building that extends into your parking lot. How is that going to be dealt with? Response: See the revised site plan. We now have a crosswalk from Vision Eyeland. Number: 100 Created: 1 /25/2007 [1/25/07] Accessible parking sign needs to identified as "van accessibl a". Will be addressed at final. Response: Please see revised site plan. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland Topic: Engineering Number: 15 Created: 12/22/2006 [1/23/07] CDOT access permit to be obtained after the plans have been approved and prior to issuance of a development construction permit. [12/22/06] A CDOT Access Permit will be required for this project. Per discussions with CDOT, a standard LCUASS driveway with radius curb on both sides will be required. Please clearly show both sides of proposed driveway curb cut and call out standard driveway with a detail added to the detail sheets. Any additional ROW or off -site easements must be dedicated if needed to construct the driveway to standard. Response: We have mailed CDOT our access permit application. We will provide a copy of the approval as soon as we have it. Number: 19 Created: 12/22/2006 [1/23/07] It is still unclear on the plans how much R.O.W. will be available after the proposed dedication. Please clearly show, label and dimension the new R.O.W. on College Avenue. Please show on the Plat and Utility Plan drawings. [12/22/06] Clearly show, label and dimension the limits of ROW for College Ave. on the Utility Plan sheet and Grading Plan sheet. Existing and proposed. Page 4 Response: Acknowledged Number: 20 Created: 12/22/2006 [1/23/07] Per telephone discussion, exiting improvements may be shown based o n rough field measurements and known utility locations. An accurate survey is not needed to satisfy this comment. [12/22/06] Please show and label any existing buildings or improvements within 50 feet of the site on all 3 sides. Response: Acknowledged Number: 21 Created: 12/22/2006 [1/23/07] In addition to showing off -site easements on the Utility Plans, these proposed offsite easements shall also be shown and labeled on the Plat. The recorded reception numbers for these off -site easements will need to be provided for reference on the final Plat prior to recording. [12/22/06] Please show and label any off -site easements needed by separate document on the Utility Plan and Grading Plan sheets. Response: Acknowledged Number: 89 Created: 1 /23/2007 [1/23/07] All signed deeds of dedication or letters of intent must be submitted for off -site easements prior to scheduling a hearing for the project Response: We provided a letter of intent prior to hearing. We are working on getting the final versions of the off - site easement. We will provide these signed easements prior to the signing of mylars. Topic: Engineering - Technical services Number: 91 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] Legal matches, area closes good. Used wrong diagram at section corners. See redline comments. Response: Acknowledged. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann Topic: Fire Number: 97 Created: 1/24/2007 [1124/07] No further comments or concerns at this time. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Floodplain Number: 43 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] Will be resolved at final. [12/27/06] 1. It appears a very small portion of the site is located in the Spring Creek 100-year floodplain. It is in the flood fringe, not the floodway. Please modify the report to reflect this. Response: The drainage report has been modified to refer to the small portion of the site located within the flood fringe of the Spring Creek 100-year floodplain. 2. The City floodplain map included in the report has now been officially adopted by FEMA, therefore there is a new map panel number. Please use FIRM Panel 08069C0987F, Community number 080102 in the report and include the attached copy of the new map. Response: A copy of the appropriate FEMA FIRM Panel 08069CO987F has been included in the report attachments. 3. From the plan it appears some landscaping will occur in the floodplain. This is allowed in the flood fringe. Please inclu de a note in both the report and the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan: An approved Floodplain Use Permit is required prior to the start of any construction or site improvements in the floodplain. Response: A note has been added in both the report and on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in this regard. 4. Please draw and label the floodplain line on the plat, drainage plan and landscaping plan. We do not yet have the digital version of the new FEMA map, however, you can use the City floodplain line since the two should be one and the same. Response: With the attached set of Utility Plans the floodplain line has been added to the grading and drainage plans. The line has also been added to the plat and landscape plan. 5. Floodplain Admin. Contact: Susan Hayes, 416-2233. Response: Acknowledged Page 5 Topic: Stormwater Number: 44 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] This item needs to be resolved before a hearing with location of outfall identified and agreed upon by City Stormwater and Environmental Planner. [12127/06] Since a new outlet pipe will be used, the outfall needs to meet current standards. This may include additional erosion protection and realignment of the outfall pipe to enter Spring Creek more in parallel with flows. Response: On January 29, 2007 representatives of QED and MTA met with Shelby Sommer, Wes Lamarque, Dana Leavitt, and Tim Buchanon in the field to discuss the trees and drainage outfall. Collectively we agreed that the best solution was to leave the existing riprap blanket intact, abandon the existing storm drain in place, and align a new storm drainage pipe between existing trees to outfall in the same location as the existing pipe, but to be buried in alignment with the riprap. Number: 45 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] Will be resolved at final. [12/27/06] Please revise water quality outlet structure detail to the current City standard. I can email an electronic copy to you Response: The City standard water quality outlet structure detail has been added to the Utility Plans, with site - specific pond data included. Number: 46 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] Will be resolved at final. [12/27/06] Please label storm sewer on the Drainage Plan including size, length, and type. Response: The Utility Plans submitted with this letter have been modified to label the proposed storm sewer pipe as commented. Number: 47 Created: 12/27/2006 [1/23/07] Will be resolved at final. [12/27/06] Please include a basin and a water quality pond summary table on the Drainage Plan. Response: A basin and water quality pond summary table has been added to the Drainage Plan included with the Utility Plans submitted with this letter. Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: WaterlWastewater Number: 30 Created: 12/26/2006 [1/23/07] Adjust location of water service to avoid conflict with benches. Would prefer to have curb stop/meter pit in landscaped area if practical. [12/26/06] Coordinate water service location with landscaping to provide minimum separation distances. Response: Acknowledged Number: 32 Created: 12/26/2006 [1/23/07] [12/26/06] Show curb stop on water service. Response: Acknowledged Number: 35 Created: 12/26/2006 [1/23/07] [12/26/06] Provide evidence of a recorded easement from the property to the north to this property for the offsite portion of the sewer service. Response: We provided a letter of intent prior to hearing. We are working on getting the final versions of the off - site easement. We will provide these signed easements prior to the signing of mylars. Number: 92 Created: 1/23/2007 [1/23/07] See redlined utility plans for other comments. Response: Acknowledged. Page 6 Comment Responses Human Bean at Spring Creek 1 /10/2007 1*19144 Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Shelby Sommer Topic: Context Diagram Number: 51 Created: 12/28/2006 [12/28/06] The context diagram does not show the surrounding context of the site. Please revise to show how this site fits into the larger picture by showing the bus stops/routes, bike trail etc. Response: Please see the revised context diagram. Topic: Elevations Number: 50 Created: 12/28/2006 [12/28/06] The building elevations for the front and back are the same. Where are the doors, walk up window etc? Also, are both side elevations exactly the same? Only one side is shown. Re.,Tponse: Please see the revised building elevations. Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt Topic: Elevations Number: 81 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Is the gate on the trash enclosure solid or open? The elevation does not specify. If open, show spacing of vertical bars, indicating that compliance with building code and ADA standards has been met. Response: The gate is solid. Please see the elevations, I have updated the drawing to clarify. Number: 82 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Bollards are shown on the "side elevation" and nowhere else, not on any plans or other elevations. Which is correct? Revise drawings accordingly. Response: The bollards have been removed. Please see the revised building elevations. Number: 83 Created: 1 /3/2007 [1/3/07] Walk-up window will have to be accessible. Indicate on elevations with dimensioning which service window is accessible. Response: Please see the revised ramps between the handicap parking space and the building on the site plan. Page 1