Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAISING CANES - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-03-02February 3, 2004 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521-0580 RE: Response to Conceptual Review comments for Raising Cane's Dear Ted, The responses below address the comments raised by the Conceptual Review Team regarding the Raising Cane's Drive -Through Restaurant. l . The maximum number of parking spaces is being met. In order to accommodate the build -to line, while still allowing the building to be close to the greatest number of parking spaces, an outdoor patio with seating has been proposed to give the effect of close proximity of building frontage to the College streetscape. The proposed parking lot has over 6% interior landscaping. The requirement for parking islands is being met, and the materials of the trash enclosure will match the building. The proposed signs and boards meet the sign code per our correspondence with Peter Barnes. 2. A plat depicting additional rights -of -way, easements, etc., will be prepared for submitta'I to the City of Fort Collins for approval. 3. Acknowledged. 4. Acknowledged. 5. It is anticipated that Stormwater from the proposed water quality pond will discharge directly into Remington Street/Dartmouth Trail. A drainage and erosion control report will be prepared and submitted to the City of Fort Collins. The Arthur Company will be included in reviews of all construction plans for the proposed. development. 6. Acknowledged. 7. Acknowledged. 8. Acknowledged. 9. Acknowledged. 10. A Transportation Impact Study is being submitted. 11. Acknowledged. 12. Acknowledged. 13. Acknowledged. 14. Acknowledged; it has been determined that the first parking stall be set back 75 feet from, the flowline. Topic: Plat Number: 20 Created: 2/24/2004 [2/24/041 The plat does riot have the apostrophe in "Caine's" that the other documents have, please ensure the title of all the documents is consistent. Number: 21 Created: 2/24/2004 [2/24/04] The repair and maintenance guarantee language needs to be moved after the statement of ownership and subdivision, prior to the ownership block. Number: 37 Created: 3/1/2004 [3/1/04] Dedicate an "emergency access easement" on the plat for the northern drive aisle connecting College to Remington as reclined and described in #18. Number: 39 Created: 3/1/2004 [3/1/04] A letter of intent from the Ditch Company agreeing in principle to the development proposal is required. Topic: Utility Number: 19 Created: 2/24/2004 12/24/04] Include street patching for the two driveways out to College Avenue. Provide the standard note regarding street repair for the patching on College Avenue. (Limits of street repair are approximate. Final limits to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector at the time the cuts are made.) The patch should be expanded to be about 22' in width to cover the two eastern through lanes. Number: 23 Created: 2/24/2004 [2/24/04] Sheet Ut notes retaining wall layout and design by others, is it intended to remove and replace the existing retaining wall? If such is the case, when redoing the retaining wall, please ensure it is outside of the new right-of-way. Number: 40 Created: 3/1/2004 [3/1/04] The construction drawings indicate that no work is being done to the driveway out to Remington. The condition of the driveway and the grade of the driveway are substandard and will need to be redone. Please ensure the design is in conformance: with LCUASS 9.3 and 9.4. Number: 41 Created: 3/2/2004 [3/2/04] The driveways out to College require concrete in right-of-way to the property line. Indicate the radii proposed on both driveways. Page 2 FRipleyA_9so��ATEs l mnaf sna pa Architecture Urban Design Planning 74(0: i0irtCS March 23, 2004 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Response to comments letter, for RAISING CANE'S. Dear Ted, The comments below address the issues raised by city staff regarding the Raising Cane's Project. Please also refer to the redlines/plans for additional responses. ISSUES: Engineering -- Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 6 Parking has been changed accordingly. Number: 7 Curb has now been turned on. See plans. Number: 8 Appropriate signage and pavement markings have been added to the plans in order to direct traffic throughout the site. Number 18 The drives have been adjusted. See plans Number: 22 The wall that appears to obstruct the sidewalk is existing, and will be removed. The new retaining wall should not conflict with the new sidewalk, if constructed properly. Phone 970 224 S828 Frrx 970. 224. 1662 401 West Mountain Ave_ Suite 201 Fort Coillns, CO 80521 2604 Or "lo,coo Number: 38 The proposed contours have been shown to tie into the existing grades along the east side of College Avenue.0 Topic: Plat Number: 20 Corrected. Number: 21 Corrected. Number: 37 The access easement has been added to the plat. Number: 39 A copy of the ditch company's compliance with the general compliance is included. Topic: Utility Number: 19 Appropriate wording regarding the proposed street patches has been added to the plans. Number: 23 The proposed retaining walls will be constructed outside of the right-of-way for College Avenue. Number: 40 The proposed drive at the northeast corner of the site is shown to be reconstructed, and is believed to be in compliance with the LCUASS as it is shown in the revised plans. Number: 41 All paving on the site will be concrete, including the aprons off of College Avenue. The radii for the proposed entrance and exit into and out of the site has been added to the plans. Light and Power — Bruce Vogel Topic: General Number: 16 Transformer pad has been located east of building. Natural Resources — Doug Moore Topic City Plan Principles and Policies Number: 2 Acknowledged. PFA — Michael Chavez Topic: General Number: 9 Acknowledged Number: 10 A fire hydrant its located just south of the proposed entrance onto College Avenue, and should satisfy the requirements for hydrant locations. Number: 11 1. Escape lane width has been adjusted. See plans. 2. Radius has been adjusted. See plans. 3. Acknowledged. 4. Acknowledged. Number: 12 Acknowledged — fire lane will be provided. Number: 13 Acknowledged. Number: 14 Acknowledged. Police — Joseph Gerdom Topic: General Number: 17 Lighting plan is being submitted, and landscaping has been adjusted. Stormwater Utility — Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 33 The requested calculation is attached. Number: 34 The proposed stormwater quality pond will discharge into the face of the curb for the new drive. Stormwater then flows north on Remington to Spring Creek. There is no low - point at the intersection of this private drive and the Dartmouth/Remington intersection, therefore a valley pan has not been added to the plans. Number: 35 A drainage report documenting proposed runoff calculations and exhibits, stormwater quality calculations and exhibits, etc. Number: 36 Acknowledged. Traffic Operations — Eric Bracke Topic: Traffic Number: 1 Parking has been changed accordingly. Transportation Planning — Tom Reiff Topic: Transportation Number: 29 More information is shown for the area south of the site, including grades. Number: 30 Ramps have been indicated. Number: 31 More space has been provided for pedestrian circulation around bike rack. Number: 32 Acknowledged — the trees have been properly labeled. Water Wastewater — Jeff Hill Topic: landscape Acknowledged.. Topic: Utility Number: 25 Appropriate detail regarding utility locations, grease/oil separators, etc., has been added to the plans. Number: 26 The existing manhole in the Dartmouth/Remington intersection will be core drilled for the proposed sanitary sewer line connection. Number: 27 All water fittings, pipes, meters, service lines, etc., have been called out on the plans. Number: 28 Acknowledged. Zoning — Peter Barnes Topic: zoning Number: 3 A tree has been put in the island. Number: 4 The ramp has been labeled. Number: 5 Acknowledged. Current Planning — Ted Shepard 1. See plans A. Elevations to be turned in after coordination meeting to be held on Mar. 26. B. Acknowledged. Trees and wall are intended for necessary buffering. Any additional required buffering to be discussed at Mar. 26 meeting. Xcel Energy 1. Acknowledged. 2. Acknowledged. Technical Services 1. Legal has been revised properly. 2. The Arthur Ditch has been properly dimensioned on the plans. 3. A legend has been added to the plat. Thank you for your consideration, Al C Amy C. Johnson VF Ripley Associates Responses here also provided by Chris Parton at Northern Engineering Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citvof Fort Collins Department: Water Wastewater Date: April 13, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: April 14, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Roger Buffington Topic: Utility Number: 45 Created: 4/13/2004 [4/13/041 Applicant must obtain a CDOT utility access permit prior to any utility work in College Avenue. Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility Number: 25 [4/9/04] Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/041 Include all the appropriate standard general detail on the detail sheet (i.e. thrust block, grease trap, traffic rated cleanout, water meter pit, services,etc). Number: 28 [4/9/04] Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/04] See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. ,4 fry Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat X Site Drainage Report Other_ V Utility _ '4 Redline Utility -- Landscape Page l F Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments (itvof fort Lulling Department: Stormwater Utility Date: April 13, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: April 14, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 36 [4/13/04] Created: 3/1 /2004 Pro]ect can go to a hearing. All drainage criteria needs to be met during final plan review after the hearing. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 43 Created: 4/12/2004 1. Please provide complete construction stormwater runoff management report, calculations, and plans per city specifications. Also, the "Grading and Erosion Control Notes" on the plan sheet are incorrect, please utilize current notes. If you have any questions regarding erosion control, please call Bob Zakely at 224-6063. Signature �� i YQ ,-r Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _L Plat Site -,"'Drainage Report Other_ Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 lJc'tkc'^ R-n Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins Department: Transportation Planning Date: April 14, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP -TYPE II All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: April 14, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Transportation Number: 29 Created: 2/25/2004 [4/13/041 The applicant mentioned that the south end of the proposed sidewalk along College Ave. would include a ramp to align with the existing ramp on the south side of the existing drive. From the plans submitted it is unclear how this will be designed to fit into the existing curb cut and frontage road location. I would suggest a meeting with transportation planning and engineering to work out the details. [2/25/04] Further information is required for the College Ave. sidewalk as it ends at the southern property line. Please call me at 416-2040 to remedy the situation. Signature Date HECK HKP IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat '� Site . Drainage Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape age 1 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: April 19, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE 11 All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: April 14, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 7 Created: 2/16/2004 [3/241041 The response letter states "Curb has now been turned on. See plans." The plans don't indicate any curb and gutter to be installed along the northern and southern boundary of the site directly east of Cellege Avenue. The utility plans also do not indicate this. Is there some other means (landscape edging?) in which the new turf and the existing asphalt are separated? From my perspective, curb and gutter should be installed to help define the edge of the roadways, but other options may be available? [2/16/041 The landscape plans indicate turf up to the property lines directly east of College Avenue, shouldn't curb and gutter be installed so that turf doesn't tie directly into asphalt? Number: 18 Created: 2/24/2004 [41121041 Please reduce the width of the northern driveway entrance off of College to 16' in order to help reduce the appearance of it being for two way travel in a manner similar as redlined on the site plan. [2/24/041 The one way drive aisles off College Avenue require 16' of width instead of 15'. Please have the southern drive aisle access widened to 16'. The northern dirve aisle also needs to be widened to 16' up to the sidewalk, however behind the sidewalk, this 16' should widen to 20' for the length of the drive aisle connecting out to Remington in satisfaction of PFA's fire lane requirement as this will be the fire lane for the site. Number: 22 Created: 2/24/2004 [4/121041 The response indicates the "new retaining wall should not conflict with the new sidewalk, if constructed properly", which is perhaps a not -so -affirmative type of response. This combined with the construction drawings noting retaining wall removal and retaining wall construction to be done "by others" has me wondering what exactly is the intent regarding the retaining walls (Are they not being removed/reconstructed by the owner/developer? Is this why no construction details are provided for the retaining walls or are they intended to be provided at a later date? [2/241041 The sidewalk along College appears to be obstructed by the retaining wall along the northwest corner of the site. Signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REy4SIONS Plat Site ✓ Drainage Report / Other Z% Trfi�c Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 15. The sidewalk and parkway meet the minimum required widths. 16. Acknowledged. 17. Please see item No. 2. 18. Canopy trees are proposed along the parkway of College Avenue. 19. Acknowledged. Outdoor patio dining is proposed. 20. Screening is proposed along the east side of the site. 21. A neighborhood meeting has been held. 22. Acknowledged. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Amy C. Johnson VF Ripley Associates Number: 38 Created: 3/1/2004 [4/13/04) The response indicates that proposed contours tie into existing grades. I don't seem to see this, for instance there's a proposed 5004 contour that appears to tie into a 5003 contour at the northenmost access ramp. 13/1/041 With more information as to how the proposed frontage along College Avenue ties into the proposed grades and roadways to the south and to the north, additional comments may be made. Number: 44 Created: 4/12/2004 [4/12/041 As a general comment in reference to previous comments, the plans and the narrative really need to give more detail with regards to how the development will tie into the existing uses considering there are roads on both side of the development off of College as well as retaining walls on both sides of the property. A thorough explanation of the intent regarding the removal and replacement of the retaining walls is required. Constructed "by others", who are "by others"? Has permission from the adjacent property owners been looked at? (Letters of intent from the surrounding property owners are required.) How can the walls be removed but not replaced in sections? Designs of the walls and structural talcs are needed as these may affect public right-of-way. Number: 46 Created: 4/14/2004 (4/14/041 In consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer there needs to be a manner in which to provide physical separation from the roadways parallel to College Avenue from the north and the south. A type III barricade on both sides with a bollard at the termination of the sidewalk on either end is one option. Alternatively, in lieu of barricades, landscaping beds and trees may also work which would perhaps be preferred from a current planning/visual impact standpoint. The sidewalk along College (assuming they tie into existing grades) needs bollards, or some other devide to make it clear vehicles cannot drive onto it. Number: 47 Created: 4/19/2004 14/191041 In reviewing the proposal. CDOT has offered the following comments: - Two access permits (one for each driveway) will need to be issued on one application. More information regarding the access permit(s) requirements will be determined as the design progresses. - No portion of a retaining wall is allowed in right-of-way (including footings). Excavation for footings cannot be within right-of-way. There may be concerns with the retaining walls onsite that run parallel to College depending on the final design. - Signs will be needed posted at the driveways indicating that the southern driveway is "Entrance Only" and the northern driveway has a "Do Not Enter" sign. These signs will need to be west of the sidewalk along College and angled facing southwest. The signs shall be situated such that sight distance is not being compromised. A One Way sign is also needed in the median in front of the northern driveway. -A warranty deed will be requred for the right-of-way dedication on College. Number: 48 Created: 4/19/2004 (4119/041 The first set of parking stalls off of College may not have enough width behind them towards College to back up and exit. You may want to look at widening the 16' for a portion to accommodate the backing up geometry or verify that this isn't an issue. Number: 49 Created: 4/19/2004 [4/191041 Prior to agreeing to scheduling a hearing, Engineering needs letter of intent from the ditch company and the property owners to the south. In addition, there needs to be some understanding of the intentions regarding the retaining walls and how the improvements on College Avenue will tie into the existing improvements. Topic: Plat Number: 39 Created: 3/1 /2004 14113/041 In addition, letters of intent appear to be needed with the existing properties to the north and south as they are affected by the retaining wall replacement/reconstruction. [3/11041 A letter of intentfrom the Ditch Company agreeing in principle to the development proposal is required. Number: 51 Created: 4/19/2004 [4/19/041 The plat does not have the latest maintenance/repair language as well as the entire "Notice of Other Documents" section. This can be electronically mailed if desired. Page 2 Topic: Utility Number: 23 Created: 2/24/2004 14/12/041 With the response: noting that the new wall will be out of the right-of-way, it would be beneficial to have a preliminary design to help understand how this will work. [2/24/041 Sheet 1-11 notes retaining wall layout and design by others, is it intended to remove and replace the existing retaining wall? If such is the case, when redoing the retaining wall, please ensure it is outside of the new right-of-way. Number: 40 Created: 3/1/2004 (4/131041 Indicate that the reconstructed driveway is to be done in concrete. [3/1/04] The construction drawings indicate that no work is being done to the driveway out to Remington. The condition of the driveway and the grade of the driveway is substandard and will need to be redone. Please ensure the design is in conformance with LCUASS 9.3 and 9.4. Number: 41 Created: 3/2/2004 [4112/04] Having seen the proposed radii, please reduce the radius on the north side of the southern driveway out to College and the south side of the northern driveway out to College down from 8' to 5' in order to further differentiate access as one way (and in concurrence with COOT). [3/2/04] The driveways out to College require concrete in right-of-way to the property line. Indicate the radii proposed on both driveways. Number: 50 Created: 4/19/2004 [4/19/04] Expand the patching area for the driveways to be shown as half the lane width. Page 3 2003 Edition CHAPTER 3E. BARRICADES AND CHANNELIZING DEVICES Page 3F-I Section 3E01 Barricades Standard: When used to warn and alert road users of the terminus of a roadway in other than temporary traffic control zones, barricades shall meet the design criteria of Section 6F.63 for a Type III barricade, except that the colors of the stripes shall be retroreflective white and retroreflective red. Option: An end -of -roadway marker or markers may be used as described in Section 3C.04. Barricades may be used to mark any of the following conditions: A. A roadway ends; B. A ramp or lane closed for operational purposes; or C. The permanent or semipermanent closure or termination of a roadway. Guidance: Appropriate advance warning signs (see Chapter 2C) should be used. Section 3E02 Channelizing Devices Option: Channelizing devices, such as traffic cones and tubular markers, may be used for general traffic control purposes such as adding emphasis to reversible lane delineation, Channelizing lines, or islands. Standard: Channelizing devices shall conform to Section 6R58 and shall be a minimum of 450 men (18 in) in height. The minimum height of cones shall be 700 mm (28 in) for use on freeways and other high-speed roadways, and on all facilities when used during hours of darkness or whenever more conspicuous guidance is needed. The color of Channelizing devices used outside of temporary traffic control zones shall be either orange or the same color as the pavement marking that they supplement, or for which they are substituted. For nighttime use, Channelizing devices shall be retroreflective. Retroreflection of tubular markers shall be a minimum of two 75 mm (3 in) white bands placed a maximum of 50 mm (2 in) from the top with a maximum of 150 mm (6 in) between the bands. Retroreflection or cones shall be provided by a minimum 150 mm (6 in) white band placed a minimum of 75 mm (3 in) but no more than 100 mm (4 in) from the top. Retroreflective material shall have a smooth, sealed outer surface that will display a similar color during both day and night. When 700 men (28 in) or larger size cones are used, the standard 150 mm (6 in) band shall be supplemented with an additional 100 mm (4 in) white band spaced a minimum of 50 mm (2 in) below the 150 mm (6 in) band. Guidance: Channelizing devices should be kept clean and bright to maximize target value. s�i. 3F.01 m3F.oz E City of Fort Callins Current Planning FINAL PLAN COMMENT SHEET DATE: June 2, 2004 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #6-04 Raising Cane's PDP — Final Plan REM 'BUM All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: 1/ June 30, 2004 Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference I. 30,,)Dwa2 r t Ltv o-cr c,-o ar.. Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility —Redline Utility _Landscape f Project Comments Sheet City otFort Colons Selected Departments Department: Water Wastewater Date: June 29, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP -TYPE II AND FINAL PLAN All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: June 30, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility Number: 28 Created: 2/25/2004 [6/28/04] Define the connection to the sanitary sewer as a drop manhole connection. Provide the standard drop manhole and HEAVY duty cleanout details on the detail sheet. Applicant must obtain a CDOT utility access permit prior to any utility work in College Avenue. [4/9/04] (2/25/04] See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Signature - 7) Z' Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility i Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 C-MUM)OM STAFF PROJECT REVIEW (itv of kin't C:ul tarts V.F. RIPLEY ASSOC. Date: 07/01/2004 C/O AMY JOHNSON 401 W. MOUNTAIN AVE. #201 FT. COLLINS, CO 80521 Staff has reviewed your submittal for RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLAN, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 7 Created: 2/16/2004 [6/7/04] It appears (by the indication of parallel lines on the drawings) that some sort of physical separation is now being provided. Please indicate (label) on the plans what this is and reference an appropriate construction detail in the details sheet of the construction plans. Response: The barrier curb has been labeled, and a detail has been added to sheet D3 of the plans. L-� [3/24/04] The response letter states "Curb has now been turned on. See plans." The plans don't indicate any curb and gutter to be installed along the northern and southern boundary of the site directly east of College Avenue. The utility plans also do not indicate this. Is there some other means (landscape edging?) in which the new turf and the existing asphalt are separated? From my perspective, curb and gutter should be installed to help define the edge of the roadways, but other options may be available? [2/16/04] The landscape plans indicate turf up to the property lines directly east of College Avenue, shouldn't curb and gutter be installed so that turf doesn't tie directly into asphalt? Number: 23 Created: 2/24/2004 [6/14/04] Please coordinate between the different plan sets on the right-of-way dedication along College Avenue. The right-of-way should now only be dedicated to the back of walk. Some of the drawings show additional right-of-way behind the sidewalk. Assuming the plat followed the original intent of additional right-of-way behind the sidewalk, the plat should now have a slightly reduced area for dedication. Response: This was an incorrect line from the previous right-of-way dedication that was incorrectly left in the drawings. This line has been removed from all drawings, so that the right-of-way line is now shown properly at the back of walk consistently on all sheets, V [4/12/041 With the response noting that the new wall will be out of the right-of-way, it would be beneficial to have a preliminary design to help understand how this will work. Page I [2/24/04] Sheet U1 notes retaining wall layout and design by others, is it intended to remove and replace the existing retaining wall? If such is the case, when redoing the retaining wall, please ensure it is outside of the new right-of-way. Number: 38 Created: 3/1 /2004 [6/14/04] It is still not clear to me how the northernmost sidewalk connection is to be constructed. By moving the 2002 contour to the northern boundary, it appears you're adding fill up to the property boundary, thus the sidewalk (and the area in general) will not tie vertically into the existing development to the north. How will this area work? Response: The grade of the exit drive was adjusted so that the grade of the sidewalk north of the exit drive will not be as steep as was previously shown. Also, a note has been added to the drawings to match existing elevations at the property line. Additionally, a concrete pan was added to the north side of the exit drive to direct stormwater within the drive onto College Avenue, rather than onto the proposed sidewalk, and adjoining properties. [4/13/04] The response indicates that proposed contours tie into existing grades. I don't seem to see this, for instance there's a proposed 5004 contour that appears to tie into a 5003 contour at the northernmost access ramp. [3/1/04] With more information as to how the proposed frontage along College Avenue ties into the proposed grades and roadways to the south and to the north, additional comments may be made. Number: 39 Created: 3/1 /2004 [6/14/041 Without knowing the grading north of the northern retaining wall, it is unknown whether the design is affecting the northern property owner to require an offsite easement. Response: The grading north of the northern retaining wall is confined to within this property. The 5001 contour is shown on the north, or low, side of the wall, and is contained entirely within the property. [4/13/041 In addition, letters of intent appear to be needed with the existing properties to the north and south as they are affected by the retaining wall replacement/reconstruction. [3/1/04] A letter of intent from the Ditch Company agreeing in principle to the development proposal is required. Number: 44 Created: 4/12/2004 (6/14/04] This comment is still viewed as not fully addressed. Response: A sheet titled "G3" has been added to the plans to show in further detail the proposed Page 2 retaining walls, the proposed tops of those retaining walls, the proposed finished grade at the bottom of each of the walls, the top of footing elevations, and the existing elevation on the appropriate side of the walls. Additionally, a wall section for the north retaining wall has been revised to show the correct maximum height. [4/12/04] As a general comment in reference to previous comments, the plans and the narrative really need to give more detail with regards to how the development will tie into the existing uses considering there are roads on both side of the development off of College as well as retaining walls on both sides of the property. A thorough explanation of the intent regarding the removal and replacement of the retaining walls is required. Constructed "by others", who are "by others"? Has permission from the adjacent property owners been looked at? (Letters of intent from the surrounding property owners are required.) How can the walls be removed but not replaced in sections? Designs of the walls and structural calcs are needed as these may affect public right-of-way. Number: 47 Created: 4/19/2004 [6/15/04] Left as unresolved for reference. The City will meet with CDOT in late June to discuss the latest plan. [4/19/04] In reviewing the proposal, CDOT has offered the following comments: - Two access permits (one for each driveway) will need to be issued on one application. More information regarding the access permit(s) requirements will be determined as the design progresses. - No portion of a retaining wall is allowed in right-of-way (including footings). Excavation for footings cannot be within right-of-way. There may be concerns with the retaining walls onsite that run parallel to College depending on the final design. - Signs will be needed posted at the driveways indicating that the southern driveway is "Entrance Only" and the northern driveway has a "Do Not Enter" sign. These signs will need to be west of the sidewalk along College and angled facing southwest. The signs shall be situated such that sight distance is not being compromised. A One Way sign is also needed in the median in front of the northern driveway. -A warranty deed will be required for the right-of-way dedication on College. Number: 54 Created: 6/11 /2004 [6/11/04] The construction plans now show construction of a landscape retaining wall at the connection out to Dartmouth. What is this and does this fall inside public right-of-way or onto private property (no external property/right-of-way boundaries are shown on the plans, which should be provided)? Please provide a detail of this proposal. Note that a 2' clearance is required between the wall and the sidewalk in accordance with Chapter 19 of LCUASS. Response: The walk along the south side of the drive connecting to Dartmouth has been revised to be attached to Page 3 the access drive. This adjustment allows the 2' separation between the back of walk and the proposed landscape retaining wall in the area, and also alleviates the requirement for off -site grading easements resulting from the construction of this wall. Additionally, the wall has been specified as being 3' maximum heighl. Number: 55 Created: 6/14/2004 [6/14/04] The sidewalk along College north of the northern driveway shows a very steep longitudinal slope (22%), steeper than the same section along the roadway, which doesn't meet LCUASS 16.2.1.H. Also, the 2004 contour line here does not appear correctly as it continues straight across the access ramp, which should adjust for the change in grade through the ramp. Response: Please see the response for comment number 38. 7 dN 5,�,X Ds. Number: 56 Created: 15/2004 [6/15/04] Provide construction details of the barricades d signage along College. Coordinate location and number of bollards between t construction and site plans as they conflict. Response: Details for the type Ill arricade and signage along College Avenue have been added to the plans. Additionally, the number of bollards at the end of the proposed sidewalks has been coordinaWbetween the site plan, and the engineering drawings. Number: 57 Created: 6/15/2004 [6/15/04] The sewer line connecting out to Remington Street is problematic in that the entire south half of Dartmouth would need to be patched (at a minimum) because the proposed patching is not per standard. In checking with water/sewer, it is suggested that instead of tying into the existing manhole, use a saddle fitting and tie 2' north of the manhole than extend the service parallel to Dartmouth into the site. In doing so, it appears that only the southern half of the north half of Dartmouth would nee to be patched. Response: The connection to the existing sewer line in Dartmouth has been revised to show a connection to the actual sewer line, rather than to the existing manhole in the intersection. The pavement repair for Dartmouth has been revised to reflect this change, also. Additionally, a detail for a heavy-duty sanitary sewer cleanout has been added to the plans for the cleanouts located within the parking lot. Number: 58 Created: 6/17/2004 [6/17/04] In general, a main concern is the lack of information on how the proposed and existing grades tie into the retaining walls surrounding the site (see redlines). The wall on the east edge of the site does not appear to have enough depth so that the Tooter is deeper than the bottom of the pond and still retain enough to the existing grade of the parking lot directly east (the structural detail shows a 7' max wall while the contours seem to show a 9' height difference). Shouldn't it be shown on the north edge of the site that the existing wall is to be removed? Shouldn't there be proposed grade lines shown north of the new wall as fill will need to be added? Why isn't there top of wall and footer elevations shown throughout the grading plan? Page 4 The structural design of the walls themselves appear fine, but there seems to be little to no information as to how this will be built in relation to the existing and proposed grades. At this point, there doesn't appear to be a way to determine if offsite easements are required from the property owner to the north. Response: Please see the response for comment no. 44. Number: 59 Created: 6/18/2004 [6/18/04] The construction drawings note an 8.8' PSCO easement but gives no indication as to its location and it's possible impact on the development. PSCO may need to sign off on aspects of the project depending on its location and impact. Response: The exact location of the PSCO easement has been added to the plans. This easement is entirely off of the Raising Cane's, to which all construction will be confined, therefore, we feel that an acknowledgment from PSCO should riot be necessary, since no work is occurring within their easement. Number: 60 Created: 6/18/2004 [6/18/04] With the outstanding issue of how the retaining walls tie into proposed and existing grades, it would be beneficial to enlarge these areas as the existing contours offsite acre difficult to read and anaylze near the property boundaries. With the need for top of wall and footer elevations as well as proposed contours being added to the plans, it will likely be difficult to read at the curent scale. Response: Please see the response for comment no. 44. Topic: landscape Number: 61 Created: 6/18/2004 [6/18/04] The street trees along College Avenue should be 5' from the sidewalk, not 10'. This helps ensure that any future widening of College to current standards will not result in a conflict with the tree placement Topic: Plat Number: 51 Created: 4/19/2004 [6/15/04] This comment was not addressed. [4/19/04] The plat does not have the latest maintenance/repair language as well as the entire "Notice of Other Documents" section. This can be electronically mailed if desired. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 62 Created: 6/28/2004 Please provide an easement for the outfall pipe from the pond. Number: 64 Created: 6/29/2004 Please provide an outfall pipe detail at the curb. Page 5 PROJECT NT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannina DATE: February 9, 2004 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #6-04 RAISING CANE's PDP - TYPE H (LUC) REM 'BIFE9I09 3.-K All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: �kJ February 25, 2004 Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference 2L-�i /`7�`; Tffff F�; c t1 07-1-4 c) J= Tl�cJ /-� R.g mafz �tTcl� C�/�S�EM�lvi/ZGW i PT « y s Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS .V/Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Coffins Number: 65 Created: 6/29/2004 All grades need to tie-in to existing contours along the perimeter of the site. At some retaining wall locations, it appears some off -site grading would occur, which would require off -site grading and temporary construction easements. Response: All grading will occur within the boundary of the Raising Cane's property; therefore, we feel that off -site grading easements are not necessary. Number: 66 Created: 6/29/2004 Please provide BOW and TOW elevations for the retaining wall on the grading plan. Response: Top of wall, bottom of wall, and top of foundation/footing elevations have been added to the plans. Additionally, existing grades on the appropriate sides of the walls have been added to the plans. Sheet G3 shows each of the proposed retaining walls in greater detail, and at a larger scale. Number: 67 Created: 6/30/2004 Once drainage leaves the outlet pipe from the detention pond, flow needs to drain into the gutter of the private drive and turn north across a concrete pan at the intersection of the two streets rather than fan out onto the private drive. This will help with freezing issues in the winter as well as a "cleaner" outfall system. Response: A concrete pan has been added at the bottom of the entrance drive to direct outfall from the water quality pipe across Dartmouth Avenue. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 68 Created: 7/1 /2004 1. There must be a project schedule on the plan. Don't use specific months, just week 1, 2, 3, etc. or moth 1, 2, 3, etc. Response: A project schedule has been added to the plans. 2. What will protect the College Avenue side of the project stormwater discharges during construction? Response: Erosion control fence has been added to the west portion of the property to prevent sediment from entering College Avenue. 3. How is the silt fencing/retaining wall construction to work. Is there enough room to place the fence north of the wall construction and leave it? Or, once the wall construction is underway, there may not be a need for the fence? There should be a note on the plan defining this BMP/process. Response: The silt fence along the north property line has been moved so that it is now located along the property line. A note regarding the location of the silt fence has been added to the plans. This note states that the silt fence shafl remain in place until all construction is complete. 4. It is unclear how the "haybales around three sides of the structure" at the pond outlet is supposed to work or do anything. It should be protected on the intake side of the structure, and since you have a pan in the pond and bales Page 6 don't work on hard surfaces...? Response: Gravel bags have been specified instead of hay bales, and have been shown around aft sides of the water quality intake structure. fkr« 5. Is the drive in the northeast corner of the site to be reconstructed? If so, what will be the protection for this construction? Response: An inlet filter sediment trap for the existing inlet north of this site has been added to the plans, and a detail has been added to the plan sheet. y: 1 t "cc s 5"Wo o. norm+ S:d� an✓v- 6. What is the protection along the east side of the site, particularly on the north end just south of the existing drive? Response: The grades of the property east of this site are higher than the property that is to be developed, therefore, we feel that erosion control fence is not necessary along the eastern property line, since stormwater runoff will not travel in this direction. Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: Utility Number: 28 Created: 2/25/2004 [6/28/04] Define the connection to the sanitary sewer as a drop manhole connection. Provide the standard drop manhole and HEAVY duty cleanout details on the detail sheet. Response: The connection to the existing manhole has been removed. The connection is now proposed on the existing sanitary sewer line. Additionally, the heavy duty cleanout is now shown on the drawings. [4/9/04] [2/25/04] See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Topic: zoning Number: 52 Created: 6/8/2004 [6/8/04] Sheet 3 of 4 indicates that the scale of the elevations is 1/8" = 1'. However, they are really drawn at a 1/4" = 1' scale. Need to change note to 1/4" = 1'. Number: 53 Created: 6/8/2004 [6/8/04] Since they once again show signage and painted mural on the elevations, they need to indicate that these are "possible" sign locations. As shown, they may not comply with the code and even though note #7 on the site plan states that signs will comply with the sign code, it avoids confusion later on if we indicate that we aren't giving approval to what they are showing on the plan. Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit. Page 7 If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750. Yours Truly, Ted Shepard City Planner Page 8 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments (ih of loft (oh inr ....r..��i Department: Stormwater Utility Date: Judy I, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLAN All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: June 30, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 62 : •^ z Created: 6/28/2004 Please provide aneasementfor the outfall pipe from the pond. Number: 64 Created: 6/29/2004 Please provide an outfall pipe detail at the curb. Number: 65 Created: 6/29/2004 All grades need to tie-in to existing contours along the perimeter of the site. At some retaining wall locations, it appears some off -site grading would occur, which would require off -site grading and temporary construction easements. Number: 66 Created: 6/29/2004 Please provide BOW and TOW elevations for the retaining wall on the grading plan. Number: 67 Created: 6/30/2004 Once drainage leaves the outlet pipe from the detention pond, flow needs to drain into the gutter of the private drive and turn north across a concrete pan at the intersection of the two streets rather than fan out onto the private drive. This will help with freezing issues in the winter as well as a "cleaner" outfall system. Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control Number: 68 Created: 7/1 /2004 1. There must he a project schedule on the plan. Don't use specific months, just week 1, 2, 3, etc. or moth 1, 2, 3, etc. C� ) Signature / - I -G Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS �/ Plat _ Site / Drainage Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments City of Fort Collins 111111111 Department: Engineering Date: Jolly 2, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II AND FINAL PLAN All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: June 30. 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 7 Created: 2/16/2004 [6/7/04l It appears (by the indication of parallel lines on the drawings) that some sort of physical separation is now being provided. Please indicate (label) on the plans what this is and reference an appropriate construction detail in the details sheet of the construction plans. [31241041 The response letter states "Curb has now been turned on. See plans." The plans don't indicate any curb and gutter to be installed along the northern and southern boundary of the site directly east of College Avenue. The utility plans also do not indicate this. Is there some other means (landscape edging?) in which the new turf and the existing asphalt are separated? From my perspective, curb and gutter should be installed to help define the edge of the roadways, but other options may be available? [2/16/041 The landscape plans indicate turf up to the property lines directly east of College Avenue, shouldn't curb and gutter be installed so that turf doesn't tie directly into asphalt? Number: 23 Created: 2/24/2004 [6/14104] Please coordinate between the different plan sets on the right-of-way dedication along College Avenue. The right-of- way should now only be dedicated to the back of walk. Some of the drawings show additional right-of-way behind the sidewalk. Assuming the plat followed the original intent of additional right-of-way behind the sidewalk, the plat should now have a slightly reduced area for dedication. (4/12/04] With the response noting that the new wall will be out of the right-of-way, it would be beneficial to have a preliminary design to help understand how this will work. [2/24/041 Sheet Ut notes retaining wall layout and design by others, is it intended to remove and replace the existing retaining wall? If such is the case, when redoing the retaining wall, please ensure it is outside of the new right-of-way. Number: 38 Created: 3/1/2004 [6/14/041 It is still not clear to me how the northernmost sidewalk connection is to be constructed. By moving the 2002 contour to the northern boundary, it appears you're adding fill up to the property boundary, thus the sidewalk (and the area in general) will not tie vertically into the existing development to the north. How will this area work? Sit_,natere Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ✓ Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility ,:-Landscape Page 1 [4/13/041 The response indicates that proposed contours tie into existing grades. I don't seem to see this, for instance there's a proposed 5004 contour that appears to tie into a 5003 contour at the northernmost access ramp. [3/1/04] With more information as to how the proposed frontage along College Avenue ties into the proposed grades and roadways to the south and to the north, additional comments may be made. Number: 39 Created: 3/1/2004 [6/14/04) Without knowing the grading north of the northern retaining wall, it is unknown whether the design is affecting the northern property owner to require an offsite easement. 14/13/041 In addition, letters of intent appear to be needed with the existing properties to the north and south as they are affected by the retaining wall replacement/reconstruction. [3/1/04] A letter of intent from the Ditch Company agreeing in principle to the development proposal is required. Number: 44 Created: 4/12/2004 (6/14104] This comment is still viewed as not fully addressed. [4/12/041 As a general comment in reference to previous comments, the plans and the narrative really need to give more detail with regards to how the development will tie into the existing uses considering there are roads on both side of the development off of College as well as retaining walls on both sides of the property. A thorough explanation of the intent regarding the removal and replacement of the retaining walls is required. Constructed "by others", who are "by others"? Has permission from the adjacent property owners been looked at? (Letters of intent from the surrounding property owners are required.) How can the walls be removed but not replaced in sections? Designs of the walls and structural talcs are needed as these may affect public right-of-way. Number: 47 Created: 4/19/2004 [6/15/04] Enclosed with the comments are two access permit applications that should be filled out to start the process. (One permit is for the northern driveway, the second for the southern driveway.) Please fill in all the information possible from 1-16 and return with the next resubmit al of revised drawings. (4/19/041 In reviewing the proposal, CDOT has offered the following comments: - Two access permits (one for each driveway) will need to be issued on one application. More information regarding the access permit(s) requirements will be detemnined as the design progresses. - No portion of a retaining wall is allowed in right-of-way (including footings). Excavation for footings cannot be within right-of-way. There may be concems with the retaining walls onsite that run parallel to College depending on the final design. - Signs will be needed posted at the driveways indicating that the southern driveway is "Entrance Only" and the northern driveway has a "Do Not Enter' sign. These signs will need to be west of the sidewalk along College and angled facing southwest. The signs shall be situated such that sight distance is not being compromised. A One Way sign is also needed in the median in front of the northern driveway. -A warranty deed will be required for the right-of-way dedication on College. Number: 54 Created: 6/11/2004 [6/11/04] The construction plans now show construction of a landscape retaining wall at the connection out to Dartmouth. What is this, does this fall inside public right-of-way or onto private property (no external property/right-of- way boundaries are shown on the plans, which should be provided), please provide a detail of this proposal. Note that a 2' clearance is required between the wall and the sidewalk in accordance with Chapter 19 of LCUASS. Number: 55 Created: 6/14/2004 [6114/041 The sidewalk along College north of the northern driveway shows a very steep longitudinal slope (22%), steeper than the same section along the roadway, which doesn't meet LCUASS 16.2.1.1-1. Also, the 2004 contour line here does not appear correctly as it continues straight across the access ramp, which should adjust for the change in grade through the ramp. Number: 56 Page 2 Created: 6/15/2004 [6/15/04] Provide construction details of the barricades and signage along College. Coordinate location and number of bollards between the construction and site plans as they conflict. Number: 57 Created: 6/15/2004 [6115/041 The sewer line connecting out to Remington Street is problematic in that the entire south half of Dartmouth would need to be patched (at a minimum) because the proposed patching is not per standard. In checking with water/sewer, it is suggested that instead of tying into the existing manhole, use a saddle fitting and tie 2' north of the manhole than extend the service parallel to Dartmouth into the site. In doing so, it appears that only the southern half of the north half of Dartmouth would nee to be patched. Number: 58 Created: 6/17/2004 [6/17/04] In general, a main concern is the lack of information on how the proposed and existing grades tie into the retaining walls surrounding the site (see redlines). The wall on the east edge of the site does not appear to have enough depth so that the Tooter is deeper than the bottom of the pond and still retain enough to the existing grade of the parking lot directly east (the structural detail shows a 7' max wall while the contours seem to show a 9' height difference). Shouldn't it be shown on the north edge of the site that the existing wall is to be removed? Shouldn't there be proposed grade lines shown north of the new wall as fill will need to be added? Why isn't there top of wall and footer elevations shown throughout the grading plan? The structural design of the walls themselves appears fine, but there seems to be little to no information as to how this will be built in relation to the existing and proposed grades. At this point, there doesn't appear to be a way to determine if offsite easements are required from the property owner to the north. Number: 59 Created: 6/18/2004 [6118/041 The construction drawings note an 8.8' PSCO easement but give no indication as to its location and its possible impact on the development. PSCO may need to sign off on aspects of the project depending on its location and impact. Number: 60 Created: 6/18/2004 [6/181041 With the outstanding issue of how the retaining walls tie into proposed and existing grades, it would be beneficial to enlarge these areas as the existing contours offsite are difficult to read and analyze near the property boundaries. With the need for top of wall and footer elevations as well as proposed contours being added to the plans, it will likely be difficult to read at the current scale. Number: 69 Created: 7/2/2004 [7/21041 The outlet of the water quality structure is currently designed to sheet flow across the driveway. Please provide a cross pan to define and carry the flows across the driveway rather than create the sheetflow condition. Topic: landscape Number: 61 Created: 6/18/2004 [6/18/041 The street trees along College Avenue should be 5' from the sidewalk, not 10'. This helps ensure that any future widening of College to current standards will not result in a conflict with the tree placement Topic: Plat Number: 51 Created: 4/19/2004 [6/15/04] This comment was not addressed. [4/191041 The plat does riot have the latest maintenance/repair language as well as the entire "Notice of Other Documents" section. This can be electronically mailed if desired. Page 3 g-,-]-03;t2=49PM; NOHTHE RNENG Jul 24 03 01:10P Raising Canes 2 ;9702214159 2253837404 # 2/ 5 p.6 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS Citp of Fort Collins 16D 50EPPA'2D ITEM: Raising Cane's Drive -Through Restaurant 2104 South College Avenue MEETING DATE: July 14, 2003 APPLICANT: Mr. Brad Sanders and Ivtr. ioshua Demoruelle, Raising Cane's, 1212 S. Acadian Thruway, Baton Rouge, LA, 70806. LAND USE DATA: Request for 3,533 square foot drive -through restaurant at 2104 South College Avenue (formerly Mister Money). The lot (Tract One) is approximately one-half acre in size. Tract Two is 18,040 square feet in size and may or may not be incorporated into the Project Development Plan. The site is located on the east side of South College Avenue, between Rutgers and Spring Park Drive, just south of Enterprise Rental Car. COMMENTS: Tl� 1. The site is zoned C, Commercial. The land use is permitted, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. In preparing the site layout, please be aware that there is a maximum of 15 parking spaces allowed per 1,000 square feet of building area which would allow up to 52 parking stalls. Also, the building must meet the "build -to line" standard along an arterial street and must not be placed more than 25 in back of the front property line. The parking lot must feature no less than 6% interior landscaping in the form of islands. There must be a landscape island for every 15 consecutive parking spaces. The trash enclosure must be made of materials that match the building. The menu board sign is deducted from the overall signage allowance. All signs are governed by the Srg:: Cod , and are re"Iio„'cd and pbITIa iod u6paratcly f'--am rile-P.D.P. The mural would come out of the signage allowance. It appears the property is not part of an approved subdivision plat. In order to pull a building permit, the property would need to be platted as part of an approved subdivision. All dedications for right-of-way and for access, utility and drainage easements can be dedicated by plat. 3. The source of electrical power is an existing overhead power line_ This line will have to be placed underground and placed within an easement. Three-phase power is available in the southeast corner of the site. The location of the transformer most be coordinated with Light and Power. Transformers must be both accessible (within ten feet) to hard surface COMMUNMY PLANNING AND ENMONMENTALSERVICES 281N. College Ave. PO.Box SBA Fort Collins, CO 80322-G560 (970)221-67H CURRENT PL0.NNL'dG DEi'Ar.7 f,tENT CPP-t'J-'JrArTZ 1it "JP �� C;7m 7 I G P'l % P _ M 9-17-03;12:49PM;N0aTHERNENG Jul 24 03 01:10p Raising Canes 2 ;970ZL14159 2253837404 # 3/ 5 p.7 for emergency change -out and screened for aesthetic purposes, if visible from a public street. 4. A Commercial One ("C-1") Form must be completed by a licensed electrical contractor to determine entrance capacity. Normal electrical development fees and charges will apply. Any change to the existing electrical system or facilities will be at the developer's expense. With frontage along a public street, shade trees will be required in the parkway between sidewalk and curb, Street trees must be kept 40 feet from streetlights and ornamentals must be kept 15 feet from streetlights where applicable. For further information, please contact Judy Dahlgren, 221-6700. 5. This site is in the Spring Creek drainage basin where the new development fee is S2,175/acre which is applicable only to the amount of new impervious surface. Existing impervious surface is grandfathered-in. Extended stormwater detention, however, is required to treat the runoff prior to release into the approved outf all system. The outfall would be Remington Street. Stormwatei is not allowed to drain onto College Avenue or into the Arthur Ditch. The design engineer will need to document the existing imperviousness and the drainage outfall points. If the site drains to the Arthur irrigation ditch, which is no longer allowed, an outfall to a City Right Of Way or drainage easement is required. There is a storm sewer in College Avenue which can be used as an out fall. This storm sewer will need to be verified since the inventory map 8K shows it draining into the Arthur ditch but other information has indicated it drains to Spring Creek_ The standard drainage and erosion control reports are required and they most be prepared by a professional engineer registered in Colorado. For further information regarding design of the stormwater system, please contact Glen Schlueter, 221-6700. Since the property does have a small portion of the Arthur ditch on it, The ditch company will need to approve the construction plans. The Arthur Irrigation Company superintendent is Bob Hartung (970) 493-4575, the president is Calvin Johnson (970) 223-5148. 6. The site will continue to be served by the City of Fart Collins Water and Wastewater Utility. Regarding the sanitary sewer, there is a possibility that Mister Money was served by an old septic system. The restaurant must hook up to the existing six-inch diameter sanitary sewer in Dartmouth. A grease and oil interceptor is required. Regarding; the water service, the existing water service could be a small as three-quarters diameter ,and would not be sufficient to serve the proposed use. A new water service must be tapped at the main and the old one must be abandoned at the main. The water main is in College Avenue. A street cut perrmt and fee are required from the City and Utility Permit is required from Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) which has jurisdiction over State Highway 287. The water meter pit must be located outside the building. The existing services would be credited towards the Plant Investment Fees. In cco_11_'PrA� IA -'Q cnrA'J'J1 AI co ooi P_R3 9_1I-03;12= 49PM;ND�THERNENG Jul 24 03 01:10p Raising Canes 2 ;9702214159 2253837404 # 4/ 5 p.a addition to the tap fees, there is the Raw Water Acquisition Fee. All fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. For an estimate of these fees, please contact Mary Young. For further information regarding water and sewer issues, please contact Jeff Hill. Both are available at 221-6700. 3. The site will be served by the Poudre Fire Authority. A fire hydrant must be within 300 feet of the building capable of delivering a minimum of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 p.s.i. Access to buildings must such that no portion of the building can be more than 150 feet from where the fire truck sets up. If there are internal fire access lanes, then these lanes most feature no less than 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside turning radii. Designated fire lanes must feature curbs painted red and "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs. Addresses must be no less than six inches in height and visible from South College Avenue. The hood and vent system must meet the Uniform Building Code and Larimer County Health Department. If the exterior features of tine hood and vent system must be screened from view. For further information, please contact Ron Gonzales, 221-6570, 9. The Street Oversizing Fee will be $25.07 per square foot of building and payable at the time of building permit issuance. Keep in mind all City fees are adjusted annually. In addition, the City collects the Larimer County Road Fee. There is information on the City's web site explaining the Street Oversizing Program. Please contact Matt Baker, 221-6605, for additional detail regarding this fee. 10. A Transportation Impact Study will be required. Please contact Eric Bracke, 221-6630, to determine the scope of the study and the number of intersections that need to be analyzed. All modes of travel (bikes, pedestrians and transit) must be addressed in the Study. 11. Staff supports the incorporation of Tract Two into the Project Development Plan (P.D.PJ in order to facilitate both water quality extended detention and bicycle pedestrian access to Remington Street. If there is to be vehicle access out to Remington, then such access should be analyzed in the Transportation Impact Study. 12, The Capital Improvement Expansion Fee is .53 cents per square foot, payable at the time of building permit.. For an accurate estimate of this fee; please contact the Building Inspection Division, 221-6760. Please note fees are adjusted annually. 13. The applicant should he aware that Highway 287 is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation. As such, access is controlled by CDOT and their policy is to consolidate extraneous curb cuts and driveways on the state highway system. The City works very closely with CDOT on administration of the State Highway Access Code. After meeting with CDOT on July 17, 2003, the City will require that southerly of the two curb cuts be restricted to one-way right -in only travel. This would allows the parking stalls be diagonal. The northerly curb cut must be restricted to one-way right -out only and should be consolidated with Enterprise Rental Car. If it is not possible to consolidate, then the northerly curb curt should be shifted as far south as feasible to gain i QCM_10_IPM7 P.04 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current PlanninLy DATE: February 9, 2004 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #6-04 RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: February 25, 2004 Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference I/C C� �tiz Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Citv uE F�t1 9-1I-03;1Z:49VM;N0RTHENNENG ;9792214159 A 5/ 5 Jul 24 03 01:10p Raising Canes 2 2253837404 p.9 separation ;From Enterprise. Joint access with Enterprise may not be as difficult since the grade change becomes less severe closer to College Avenue. 14, There is a requirement that the first parking stall be set back from the College Avenue flowline. by as much as 100 feet. This is to prevent any disruption in through traffic on the roadway while cars are maneuvering in the parking lot. This distance could possibly be reduced depending on volume on the roadway and would require an analysis that would be part of the Transportation Impact Study. Any reduction from the standard must be approved as an administrative variance granted by the City Engineer. Please contact' Marc Virata, 221-6605 for further information. 15. The designof the new curb, gutter and sidewalk on College Avenue may need to extend beyond the limits of the property in order to evaluate the impact on the abutting properties. The walk must be at least seven feet wide and the parkway at least ten feet wide. 16. Utility Plans are required as part of the submittal for a Project Development Plan. A Development Agreement will be required between the developer and the City for the construction and inspection of public improvements. A Development Construction Permit and Fee is required prior to beginning work on the site. For further information regarding civil engineering issues, please contact Marc Virata, 221-6605. 17. A plat will be required. The plat will need to show a dedication of public right-of-way so that there :is 70.5 feet from property line to the centerline of College Avenue. Behind the right-of-way, there will need to be a 15-foot wide utility easement. 18. Improverrients to College Avenue include minimum two-inch caliper deciduous shade trees planted at 30 to 35 foot intervals located in the parkway between sidewalk and curb. 19. The corporate prototype architecture will have to be toned down in order to comply with Section 3.5 of the Land Use Code. In particular, the large mural may be questionable and warrants further discussion. Outdoor patio dining is highly encouraged. 20. The adjacent residential area may have to be protected from headlight glare, noise from equipment, security lighting, etc. by landscaping and screening that exceeds the minimum requirements of the Land Use Code. Parking lot security lights may have to be equipped with "house side shields" to prevent illumination from spilling into the residential area. 21, A neighborhood meeting with the residents of the adjacent condominiums and owners of the offices and rental car company will be required, 22. The size of the trash enclosure should be enlarged to include space for containers for recyclable materials. The use of irrigated turf is discouraged. Native plants and grasses are encouraged. For a list of drought -tolerant species, please contact either Doug Moore at 221-6750 or Laurie D'Audney at 221-6700. I. A. SEP-17-2223 14:30 9722214159 977, P.05 PROJECT (062)1 COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins REC.D Current Plannint! DATE: February 9, 2004 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: 96-04 RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by Ted Shepard no later than the staff review meeting: February 25, 2004 Note - PLEAsE identify your redlines for future reference f3lz,t f z 1,j6.CGc_C ��t=� 4,7��CHED CLCSU�c' �i�<<'�. Z. GJ/4r IS 7--H& ! vCL CJ i 0rt-4 c) Al2b-rl—iu PT Name (please print) .CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Repoli Other _Utility _Redline Utilitv _Landscape r 4",*) City of Fort Collins Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Transportation Planning REC. D WFEB26Fn 2: Date: February 25, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP -TYPE II All comments muss: be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: February 25, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Transportation Number: 29 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/041 Further information is required for the College Ave. sidewalk as it ends at the southern property line. Please call me at 416-2040 to remedy the situation. Number: 30 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/041 Please include are necessary access ramps on ALL plan sets, including the ramp for the handicap parking stall. Number: 31 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/041 Relocate the bike rack out of the sidewalk and closer to the entrance so as not to impede pedestrian traffic (see red lines). Number: 32 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/041 On the landscape plans there appears to be trees located in the middle of the proposed walkway leading to Remington St. Please add a note to either remove the trees or realign the walk. c2-zs Date CHECK HE$E IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat —�(`� Site Drainage Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page I Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citv of Fort Collins Department: Water Wastewater Date: February 25, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: February 25, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill Topic: landscape Number: 24 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/041 Maintain the required landscape/utility separation distances on the landscape plans. Topic: Utility Number: 25 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/04] Include all the appropriate standard general detail on the detail sheet (i.e. thrust block, grease trap, traffic rated cleanout, water meter pit, services, etc). Number: 26 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/041 Include a note to core drill all openings into existing sanitary sewer manholes and to coordinate all abandonment's with the city utilities. Number: 27 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/041 Call out all water line fittings, gate valves, lengths of pipe. type of pipe, etc. on the overall utility plans. Number: 28 Created: 2/25/2004 [2/25/04] See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. lI , Signature' Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility X Landscape Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citvot Fort C ollins Department: Stormwater Utility Date: March 1, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: February 25, 2004 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 33 Created: 2/27/2004 Please provide calculations showing that proposed drainage onto College Avenue is equal to or less than existing. Number: 34 Created: 2/27/2004 The outfall for this site needs to be discussed in more detail. Does drainage flow down Remington Street to Spring Creek? Are any new improvements required like valley pans, etc. in the right-of-way? Number: 35 Created: 2/27/2004 The preliminary submittal should include a drainage plan with hydrology calculations documenting sub -basins and peak flows. All hydraulic design can wait until after the hearing during final plan review. Number: 36 Created: 3/1 /2004 Project can go to a hearing. All drainage criteria needs to be met during final plan review after the hearing. Signature 31/w `r Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ Site ✓Drainage Report Other_ Utility _ Redline Utility / Landscape Page 1 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: Nlarch 2, 2004 Project: RAISING CANE'S PDP - TYPE II All comments must be received by Ted Shepard in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: February 25, 2004 Mote - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 6 Created: 2/16/2004 [2/16/04] The site design shows 90 degree parking for the 20 parking spaces immediately off the College Avenue entrance. Previous discussions with City and CDOT had concluded that the dual driveways out to College would be acceptable if the site operates as one way in -out access. Angled parking for these 20 parking spaces is a critical aspect of the design to ensure it functions as one way in, one way out. The present design is not enough of a discouragement for someone to try to exit the site from the southern driveway. This position is also that of CDOT. Number: 7 Created: 2/16/2004 [2/16/04] The landscape plans indicate turf up to the property lines directly east of College Avenue, shouldn't curb and gutter be installed so that turf doesn't tie directly into asphalt? Number: 8 Created: 2/16/2004 [2/16/04] Signage should be installed for vehicles heading west towards the angled parking section indicating that this is one way only and do not enter as well as signage along College Avenue indicating the one way nature of the driveways. Please indicate these on the site and on the signing and striping portion of the utility plans. Number: 18 Created: 2/24/2004 [2/24/04] The one way drive aisles off College Avenue require 16' of width instead of 15'. Please have the southern drive aisle access widened to 16'. The northern drive aisle also needs to be widened to 16' up to the sidewalk, however behind the sidewalk, this 16' should widen to 20' for the length of the drive aisle connecting out to Remington in satisfaction of PFA's fire lane requirement as this will be the fire lane for the site. Number: 22 Created: 2/24/2004 12/24/041 The sidewalk along College appears to be obstructed by the retaining wall along the northwest corner of the site. Number: 38 Created: 3/1/2004 [3/1/04] With more information as to how the proposed frontage along College Avenue ties into the proposed grades and roadways to the south and to the north, additional comments may be made. 7 r- / D re / CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS at ✓ Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility ✓ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1