Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWHOLE FOODS CENTER - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2005-03-02Transportation Services Engineering Department City of Fort Collins May 31, 2000 ZTI Group Inc. Real Estate Debbie Tamlin 2120 South College Ave. Fort Collins, Co. 80525 RE: Existing Wards site, dba SubmitOrder.com Dear Ms. Tamlin: Following are staff comments responding to the four questions asked in your letter to Mr. Greg Byrne dated May 16, 2000. 1. "Can we plan to have narrower parking stall widths (i.e. 9' wide by 55' deep bays), as did DCP in redevelopment of adjacent University Towne Center?" Staff Response The City's Land Use Code specifies parking stall and drive aisle dimensions. The only way that these can be changed is through a modification to the LUC or a zoning variance, depending on how we process the development application. On -site improvements from the Zoning Departments prospective will probably be limited to landscaping, walkway connections and facade changes. 2. " Are there any other off -site impacts that we have not thought of other then landscaping, sidewalk and facade changes? If so what would they be?" Staff Response A sidewalk connection to the Mason Street (multimodal corridor) would be required. However, this most likely can be accommodated along the northern property boundary and may be an on -site connection, if not then the off -site connection plus associated easements would be required. 3. "How does the new water quality standard affect the change of use on this project should we decide to go this route?" 2S I North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378 w", w. ci. fort -col h ns.co. us PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Plannin �y DATE: October 11, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: University Shopping Center— Wards Redevelopment PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: October 25, 2000 ❑ No Problems 2 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: 1. It appears that construction will occur outside of the property boundaries for the site. Provide evidence of the offsite easements for construction prior to acceptance of the utility plans. 2. I have not seen documentation that the City's Traffic Engineer has no objection to the driveway entrance out to College Avenue. 3. On the utility plan, provide a design for the sidewalk access ramp similar to D-13 with the detached sidewalks continuing straight across. This is shown correctly on the plan set, a detail is just needed on the details sheet. --� 4. Transfort has nindicated that the transit stop at this location will be eliminated, as such the indication of a Type A bus stop should be eliminated. 5. Who maintains the: Tract on the plat shown for the future wireless telecommunication equipment? 6. Revise the General. Notes on the utility plan as attached (electronic format is available.) Bonnet Bolt is no longer used for benchmark purposes, provide benchmarks as established in the City of Port Collins Vertical Control. 8. Easements A and B on the plat as well as the building envelope for Lot 2 is not locatable. 9. It is my understanding that per Transportation Planning, additional sidewalk connections should be made, with portions of sidewalk to be built at a later date and funds for the sidewalk escrowed by the Developer. As such, as Development Agreement may need to be completed for the project. Date: Vlarch -'0. _2001 Signa PLI A51 SEND COPIES OF %17aRKLD REVISI []Lv0 EYPlat 'Site T)tility EI Landscape ❑ Drainage Report ❑ VO CONIDdL?NfTS-SI-BMIT \9y'L-yRS PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 11, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: University Shopping Center— Wards Redevelopment PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: October 25, 2000 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concems (see below or attached) Comments: • The original plat shows a 100' setback from the street centerline of College Avenue, as such, there needs to be a 30' setback from the existing right-of-way. • The sidewalk needs to be 7' wide and detached 10' from the College Avenue street flowline for a major arterial roadway. Show existing/proposed sidewalk improvements along college north of the northern driveway. • Provide offsite easements from affected surrounding property owners prior to acceptance of the utility plans. • The traffic study illustrated the need for a minimum left turn lane out from the site to northbound college needing to be 270 feet long. As such there should not be any curb openings on the north main drive aisle entrance off of College Avenue. • Provide standard Maintenance and Repair Guarantee as well as Notice of Other Documents language on the plat. • The sidewalk across the southern access drive should continue straight across, not angle out towards the street as there is no need for the pedestrian to cross College Avenue at this location. • Provide a design for the sidewalk access ramp at the north driveway similar to D-13 with the detached sidewalks continuing straight across. • Dedicate a pedestrian access easement on the plat for the detached sidewalk to be fully inside in along College. • The existing building should be defined as a building envelope on the plat. • Please provide parking lot and stall dimensions with the next submittal. It appears that loading width standards are not meant based on Table A in section 3? of the L.U.C. • According to Transit Standards and Guidelines and as required by 3.6.5 of the L.U.C., a Type A bus stop with a shelter and pad is required. Please contact Transfort with design requirements. Date: October 31. 2000 Signature���� PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS 2 Plat 23 Site 21 Utility 2 Landscape 12 Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS �I Citv of Fort Callins Current Planning Post-40 Fax Note 7671 To(_;// �_QSr�7i74 _ iDa[e From I'hr ✓� / S F. [ y Fx " i /�y crn.-c'S l'i";G r7li✓i L, r �� % f /C'� t /<7, 1 DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Transfort PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference 7Z�- ,z-- Sigyzature� CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat t'Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility Redline Utility Landscnoe city nF Fo couins PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 11, 2000 PROJECT: University Shopping PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata DEPT: ENGINEERING Center — Wards Redevelopment All comments must be received by: October 25, 2000 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concems (see below or attached) Comments: l . It appears that construction will occur outside of the property boumdaries for the site. Provide evidence of the offsite casements for construction prior to acceptance of the utility plans. 2. I have not seen documentation that the City's Traffic Engineer has no objection to the driveway entrance out to Coillege Avenue. 3. On the utility plan, provide a design for the sidewalk access ramp similar to D-13 with the detached sidewalks continuing straight across. This is shown correctly on the plan set, a detail is just needed on the details sheet. 4. Transfort has no indicated that the transit stop at this location will be eliminated, as such the indication of a Type A bus stop should be eliminated. 5. Who maintains the Tract on the plat shown for the future wireless telecommunication equipment? 6. Revise the General Notes on the utility plan as attached (electronic format is available-) 7. Bonnet Bolt is no longer used for benchmark purposes, provide benchmarks as established in the City of fort Collins Vertical Control. 8. Easements A and B on the plat as well as the building envelope for Lot 2 is not locatable. 9. It is my understanding that per Transportation Planning, additional sidewalk connections should be made, with portions of sidewalk to be built at a later date and funds for the sidewalk escrowed by the Developer. As such, as Development Agreement may need to be completed for the project. Date: March 20, 2001 Signat / <— PLEyySE SEND COPIES OI; i tARI<ED REVISIO / Plat Site �Jtility ©/Landscape El Drainage Report []'NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 11, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: University Shopping Center — Wards Redevelopment PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: October 25, 2000 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: • The original plat shows a 100' setback from the street centerline of College Avenue, as such, there needs to be a 30' setback from the existing right-of-way. • The sidewalk needs to be 7' wide and detached 10' from the College Avenue street flowline for a major arterial roadway. Show existing/proposed sidewalk improvements along college north of the northern driveway. • Provide offsite easements from affected surrounding property owners prior to acceptance of the utility plans. • The traffic study illustrated the need for a minimum left turn lane out from the site to northbound college needing to be 270 feet long. As such there should not be any curb openings on the north main drive aisle entrance: off of College Avenue. • Provide standard Maintenance and Repair Guarantee as well as Notice of Other Documents language on the plat. • The sidewalk across the southern access drive should continue straight across, not angle out towards the street as there is no need for the pedestrian to cross College Avenue at this location. • Provide a design for the sidewalk access ramp at the north driveway similar to D-13 with the detached sidewalks continuing straight across. • Dedicate a pedestrian access easement on the plat for the detached sidewalk to be fully inside in along College. • The existing building should be defined as a building envelope on the plat. • Please provide parking lot and stall dimensions with the next submittal. It appears that loading width standards are not meant based on Table A in section 3.2 of the L.U.C. • According to Transit Standards and Guidelines and as required by 3.6.5 of the L.U.C., a Type A bus stop with a shelter and pad is required. Please contact Transfort with design requirements. Date: October 31, 2000 Signature �'— —� � PLEASE SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS 10 Plat 0 Site 0 Utility 2 Landscape 0 Drainage Report ❑ NO COMMF,NTS-SUBMIT MYLARS PROJECT riwiiffmi�WA COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins i Current Plannine DATE: October I I, 2000 TO: Transfort PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference �7 Signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat l'Site _Drainage Report _Other 66a __Utility Redline Utility _Landscape c,cvoeForrc°n'ns PROJECT COMMENT SHE City of Fort Callin:: Current Planninu DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Trans Planning PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference Please see redlines for comment details • 'Pleasiee show bike parking near entrance to each tenant's location. • Will sidewalk: system be continuous around Mont. Wards site? Currently pretty hit & miss on north and west side. With additional pedestrian traffic anticipated from Mason Corridor, pedestrian system serving all three sides of site should be improved. • Do we want angled HC ramps on pedestrian access "islands" serving the business sites north of the building? Perhaps straight paths will be a bit easier to maneuver. • How far will site build connection to future Mason Corridor? Proposed transit station is a bit north of the Wards site. Show handicap ramps from HC parking to site on west side of building. ANC, Znhs�ncs _� X -,-Ak A F R,. ers/Colo �� ca.sis}� Signature 0 CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat 1OSitc _Drainage Report _Other 6a __Utility _Redline Utility j' Landscape city of Po=t couins PROJECT - M COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 111 2000 TO: PFA PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference ADDRESS NUMERALS: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6 inch numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: This proposed building shall be fire sprinklered. 100 NOTE: This note pertains to building A. BUILDING AREA: This proposed building exceeds 5000 square feet for type V construction and must be fire contained or fire sprinklered sC' f j z: NOTE: This not pertains to building B. signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site Drainage Report _Other Utility Redtine Utility _Landscape KNOX BOX: Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. � r- WATER SUPPLY: Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater then 300 feet from a Fire hydrant. - - - AN City of Fort Collins, Current Planninu PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DATE: October 119 2000 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference . LEGAL l7oE�,AJY CLO!5C , PLAT 'DOC6 CLOSE US/N tMC#ScleED 2� 1�11 SS lN< CJ L/ I 3 IIC:INT-I M,`�r >At SSP"h VU 6) ��l O T O U lG C Y r- G A J S -nU-cd 1 teds VTR I �� (��Yo u-e �{ �DY P`G Drb (7 tG GTl Signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS ✓Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other Utility _Redline Utility Landscape 6a City of Fort Collins Staff Response Stormwater encourages that water quality be addressed by either extended detention or some form of Best Management Practice. Unless, the site is being regraded and a new asphalt surface is place, it is not a requirement. 4. " Are there any unresolved Storm Drainage issues that you or Glen Sluter knows of in relation to the capacity in Arthur Ditch behind the Wards property?" Staff Response Actually, it is the Sherwood Lateral. Again, the site is already developed so the imperviousness is grandfathered in. If the total site were redeveloping the runoff could not flow to the ditch. It would have to be conveyed over or under the ditch to Spring Creek. Also, there has been some erosion in the railroad right of way. Under today's standards the City would require an easement or license agreement with the railroad to discharge runoff into their right of way. The ouffall system needs some work to stabilize it. However, if there is no increase in imperviousness this condition is grandfathered. But, Stormwated encourages at a minimum stabilization of the outfall system. Hopefully, this letter answers the questions you submitted and if you need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 221-6765. Sincerely, David Stringer Interim Planning Director (A�;4 City of Fort Collins Current PlanninLo PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference Signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site _Drainage Report _Other 6a Utility Redline Utility _Landscape c;tv of hart Cou;ns City of Fort Collins ■ Current Planning PROJECT COMMENT SHEET DATE: October 11, 2000 DEPT: Water & Wastewater PROJECT: University Shopping Center - Wards Redevelopment All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 ➢ Coorindate landscape design with civil design and provide required landscape separation distances. ➢ Include standard general notes on all sheets of the landscape plans pertaining to landscape/utility separation distances and locates. ➢ Provide utility easement for all existing and proposed water/sewer mains, services, fire hydrants, etc. ➢ Show and label all proposed and existing fittings, manholes, fire hydrants, valves, and other water/sewer line appurtenances. ➢ All buildings must be served by individual water and sewer services. ➢ Field locate and correctly show/labelall existing water and sewer lines on all sheet of the development plans. ➢ Include the following standard details with next submittal: meter pit, pipe bedding and thrust block. ➢ Maintain a 15 feet separation distance from all sewer main to any permanent structure. ➢ See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Date: A) -''—S-•�i Signature: CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS X PLAT X SITE _DRAtNREPORT _OTHER X UTILITYTUTILITYX REDLINE Uti TILITY LANDSCAPE City of Fort Collins emob., PROJECT WKWO COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins ■ Current Plannitit! DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: Street Oversizing PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference •a-��jC'1ec� / �J � q r X0 (jle a i -7 tjY'%:.cLS�st[fr Signature CHECK RE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report _Other a _Utility Redline Utility _Landscape G oeF�t W n: V J W r M TO: Ed Zdenek, ZTI Group L0 Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer m City of Fort Collins Staff o FROM: Matt Delich ­007 `,1 1 r `l/ rn X DATE: October 23, 2000 a LL SUBJECT: Montgomery Wards Redevelopment Transportation Impact Study - Response to staff comments (File: 0075me01) p This memorandum responds to three comments by Eric Bracke N regarding the Montgomery Wards Redevelopment. The comments took the coo form of notes on the site plan for this redevelopment proposal. C 1. This comment asks whether a right-in/right-ouL access to College Avenue just north of the Rutgers intersection can be Li closed. This access goes to the Safelite Auto Glass building 0 on the west side of College Avenue. This access and building = is not within the property included in the subject d redevelopment. However, alternative access to the Safelite building is being provided internally as part of the site plan for the Montgomery Wards Redevelopment. if the City wants this right-in/right-out access closed, they will need to work directly with that property owner/business. Provision of alternative access to the west is as much as this redevelopment proposal can do regarding this issue. 2. This: comment refers to the "on -site" intersection located at the south end of the subject property, approximately 200 feet west. of Bennigan's restaurant. This intersection is labeled as awkward. It is true that the curb configuration shown on the site plan will be awkward with the recommended control at this intersection. The recommended traffic control is all -way stop sign control, and the alternative is to provide stop sign O control on the east leg of this intersection. In either case, z ¢ a small adjustment in the north/south driveway will eliminate w the awkward nature of this intersection. 'Phis is shown in z O Figure 1. In order to accomplish this, there will need to be z cooperation between the developer of the Montgomery Wards W Redevelopment and the owner of the University Mali Shopping O Center to the south. F¢ ¢ 3. This: comment asks whether the right-in/right-out access to n College Avenue just to the north of Bennigan's restaurant can m be closed. This access is shared on the Montgomery Wards z Q Redevelopment property and the property to the south F (University Mall Shopping Center). My client resists closure ot} of this access. During traffic counting, it was observed that this, access did not cause operational or safety concerns to the College Avenue traffic. 'there is a continuous lane on the west ¢ side of College Avenue between this access and the Rutgers Avenue intersection. This lane serves as an auxiliary deceleration lane for this access, which removes any right- turning vehicles from the through lanes on College Avenue. There is also a continuous lane from this access to the south, to and through the Columbia Avenue intersection. This right-in/right-out access is also controlled by a raised median in College Avenue. As a right-in/right-out access, it is concluded to be as safe as is possible. TENANT 2 n New Curb On -site C� / C / ck Intersection (� W REALIGNMENT OF ON -SITE OFFSET INTERSECTION 41 N Figure 1 Community Planning and Environmental Services Current Plannin;; City of Fort Collins October 25, 2000 ZTI Group/Architecture c/o Ed Zdenek 2120 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Ed, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (University Center PUD), Minor Amendment that was submitted to the City on October 4, 2000, and is offering the following comments: 1. This property is located on the west side of South College Avenue at the Rutgers Avenue intersection. Prospect Road is approximately 1/2 mile to the north and Drake Road is approximately 1/2 mile to the south. The site is in the C - Commercial Zoning District. The proposed "commercial' uses are permitted in this District and can be reviewed administratively as a Minor Amendment. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 3. Bruce Vogel of the Light & Power Department stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 4. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. "'I A,,I I (Ale}{c .-A%cnur • N ). im vlO • Port CAlinti, CO 805'-^-05fi0 • i9co) "I-i,- 0 • FAX (970) 41v 'U'_'0 b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property [South College Avenue], and posted with a minimum of 6" numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). C. Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. No commercial building can be greater that 300' from a fire hydrant. d. Building A shall be fire sprinklered. e. Building B exceeds 5,000 square feet for Type V construction and must be fire contained or fire sprinklered. Please contact Michael, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 5. Gary Huett of Public Service Company of Colorado stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 6. Peter Barnes of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. While the drive aisle widths are less than required by Code, the Director of CPES has determined that they are acceptable since they are the same as those approved for the University Center PUD. Actually, they are 2' wider than the University Center plan. b. The handicapped stalls must be 13' wide, as set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(4)(a) of the Land Use Code (LUC). C. The number of parking spaces complies with the 5/ 1000 square feet for shopping centers. The Director of CPES has determined that the shopping center standard applies, as this project is to be lumped together with the parking supply for the University Center. Therefore, the number of parking spaces shown on this plan is OK. d. The 36' wide parking bays on the west side of the building must be 38' wide, or they must be labeled and signed as "Employee Parking Only". b. The trash enclosures should be designed to provide room for recycling. C. Appropriate screening of the trash enclosure is required, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(6) of the LUC. Please contact Doug, at 224-6143, if you have questions about these comments. 11. Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, submitted a Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes COMMENT SHEET and General Information regarding Water Conservation Standards for LANDSCAPING and IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. Copies of these documents are attached to this comment letter. 12. Fric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department stated that his comments are on a marked -up Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant. 13. A copy of the comments received from Mark Jackson of the Transportation Planning Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Mark, at 416-2029, if you have questions about his comments. 14. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated that Honeylocust is 46% of the tree species mix being used on the site. It should be 15-20%. Incorporate other species or varieties in the project to reduce the quantity of Honeylocust. It is being requested that Legacy Sugar Maple, Acer saccharum `Legacy' be used as a street tree along South College Avenue. 15. The Technical Services (Mapping) Department offered the following comments: a. The legal description for the property does not close. The subdivision plat does close using measured courses. b. Some of the required subdivision plat statements are missing. C. The Vicinity Map is missing from the subdivision plat. d. This does not look like a final plat. b. The trash enclosures should be designed to provide room for recycling. C. Appropriate screening of the trash enclosure is required, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(E)(6) of the LUC. Please contact Doug, at 224-6143, if you have questions about these comments. 11. Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, submitted a Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes COMMENT SHEET and General Information regarding Water Conservation Standards for LANDSCAPING and IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. Copies of these documents are attached to this comment letter. 12. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department stated that his comments are on a marked -up Site Plan that is being forwarded to the applicant. 13. A copy of the comments received from Mark Jackson of the Transportation Planning Department is attached to this comment letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Mark, at 416-2029, if you have questions about his comments. 14. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated that Honeylocust is 46% of the tree species mix being used on the site. It should be 15-20%. Incorporate other species or varieties in the project to reduce the quantity of Honeylocust. It is being requested that Legacy Sugar Maple, Acer saccharum `Legacy' be used as a street tree along South College Avenue. 15. The Technical Services (Mapping) Department offered the following comments: a. The legal description for the property does not close. The subdivision plat does close using measured courses. b. Some of the required subdivision plat statements are missing. C. The Vicinity Map is missing from the subdivision plat. d. This does not look like a final plat. REAL ESTATE May 16, 2000 Mr. Greg Byrne Director of Community Development City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Meeting SubmitOrder.com Dear Greg: Thank you for your time today meeting with myself, Bob Perry and Ed Zdenek. We appreciate all the time you, Rowland Mower and Frank Bruno have spent on this project to date. I will be out of town the rest of the week and wanted to follow up on several of the issues we will need answered so that we can make a proposal to SubmitOrder.com's RFP. Assuming that we can continue this project under a minor amendment instead of P & Z hearing for change of use:: 1. Can we plan to have narrower parking stall widths (i.e. 9' wide by 55' deep bays), as did DPC in redevelopment of adjacent University Towne Center? 2. Are there! any unresolved Storm Drainage issues that you or Glen Sluter knows of in relation to the capacity in Arthur Ditch behind the Wards property? 3. How does the new water quality standard affect the change of use on this project should we decide to go this route? 4. Are there: any other off -site or on -site impacts that we have not thought of other than landscaping, sidewalk, and facade changes? If so, what would they be? I appreciate your help on these issues. We are looking forward to getting a quality tenant in the space as soon as possible. Again, thank you for your time today. Sincerely, ZTI GRO P, INC. Re;Estto Debbie Tamlin President Cc: Bob Perry Ed Zdenek Rowland Mower C:dtimydocs/wards/SubmitOrder city letter 2120 South College Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-493-2393 e. The quality of the subdivision plat needs to be improved for reproduction (text size, line density, etc.). Please contact Jim Hoff, at 221-6588, if you have questions about these comments. 16. GayLene Rossiter of Transfort stated that a bus stop must be provided southbound on South College Avenue at Rutgers Avenue, at the southwest corner of the intersection. The facility must be designed according to Transit Standards & Guidelines, being a Type `A' stop with shelter and pad. 17. Matt Baker of Street Oversizing in Engineering stated that street oversizing fees for the Montgomery- Wards building have been previously paid as commercial. The proposal is for no change of use; therefore, no fees will be due for the existing building. The new pad site will be charged street oversizing fees based on the use. The following comments/concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review Meeting on October 25, 2000: Engineering/Marc Virata 18. The detached sidewalk outside of the right-of-wav for South College Avenue needs to be in an access easement. 19. Transfort needs a bus stop & shelter somewhere in the area of Lot 2, Building B. Is there enough easement to accommodate this? This must be worked out. 20. The subdivision plat does not yet have some of the required language, such as Maintenance & Repair and Notice of Other Documents language. 21. The plans should show more clearly what is north of the entry drive at Rutgers Avenue. 22. Off -site construction easements are needed on the properties to the north, south, and east. 23. The original Traffic Study suggests that the interior access points going north and south from the entry drive at Rutgers Avenue (about 150' west of South College Avenue) be eliminated. 24. Is a 17' deep parking stall deep enough? 25. Are the landscape islands to be raised or painted? They must be raised. 26. On the subdivision plat, is there a building envelope for Building A, on Lot 1? Ties (bearing 8s distances) are needed to be able to locate the building envelope(s). Transportation Planning/Mark Jackson 27. Show and provide bicycle parking near building entrances. 28. Ensure that the sidewalk system is continuous and consistent. 29. The future pedestrian connection to the Mason Street Multi -modal Corridor needs to be better defined. The walks need to be a minimum of 8' wide to accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles. 30. The angled sidewalks to the north, through the landscaped islands, seem awkward. They should be straight. 31. It is preferred that there be sidewalks on both sides of the driveway entry across from Rutgers Avenue. 32. The crosswalk at the driveway entry at Rutgers Avenue should be an enhanced crosswalk. 33. Extend the sidewalk along South College Avenue as far north as possible on this property. 34. Handicapped ramps, being necessary, are not being shown on the west side of the site. Stormwater/Glen Schlueter 35. The new pad site(s) essentially wipe out the necessary on -site detention. There needs to be compensation for this. Natural Resources/Doug Moore 36. Show the necessary trash enclosures on the plans. Appropriate screening for the enclosures must be provided and the enclosures should be designed to include recycling. Planning 37. There are more than 15 parking spaces in a row without some form of landscaping in some areas of the site. Section 3.2. 1 (E)(5)(e) of the LUC requires that parking bays extend no more than 15 parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula. 38. The west elevation, and, to some extent, the north elevation of the building do not comply with the standards as set forth in Section 3.5.3(D) of the LUC. This section deals with facade treatment (all sides), building entrances, base and top treatments, etc. Also, the elevations do not satisfy the requirements set forth in Section 3.5.4 — Large Retail Establishments of the LUC. More building articulation, meeting the standards referenced in the aforementioned sections of the LUC, is needed. 39. The landscape treatment along the west property line is insufficient. A minimum 5' wide landscape strip between parking and the property line is required. The existing stand of trees off -site along the west property line are probably short-lived and do not satisfy the adequate screening requirement. The Mason Street Multi -Modal Corridor along the railroad tracks will become a reality in the near future and there needs to be proper and adequate buffering between this site and the corridor. This completes 1-he staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Revisions based on responses to these comments should be resubmitted to the Current Planning Department as soon as possible to enable this Minor Amendment request to move forward in a timely fashion. Please see the attached Revisions Routing Sheet for the number of copies of each document to resubmit. Please contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting soon to discuss staffs comments and concerns, if necessary. Sincerely, Steve Olt Project Planner February 23, 2001 J-R ENGINEERING Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner City of Fort Collins — CPES Current Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Wards Redevelopment — Responses for October 25, 2000 Review Comments Dear Steve: The following are responses to the City's review comment letter of October 25, 2000. l . Information only related to zoning. 2. Post Office — No Comments 3. Light & Power — No Comments 4. Poudre Fire Authority — a. The knox box has been added b. Address numerals will conform to requirement C. Fire hydrants spacing meets criteria d. Building A will be fire sprinklered e. Building B is subject to future review 5. Public Service — No Comments 6. Zoning a. No action required b. Handicapped stalls have been revised C. No action required d. Bays have been revised to 38 feet C. Bicycle racks have been added f. A cross -lot parking easement will be provided g. Cross access and parking easements are in place between the development to the south and this project. h. We have corrected our delineation on the west property line to illustrate a 5' buffer and added notes regarding both the maintenance of the existing (off -site) landscaping and the additional trees that may be required. i. We have revised the north, west and east elevations to embellish the fenestration. 7. Stormwater Comments — these have been addressed with the revised plans and drainage report 8. Engineering Comments — We have adjusted the entry drive to provide a left turn lane in cxcess of 270 ; we have adjusted the sidewalks as required; we have added notes to the drawing regarding the transit stop 2620 Fast I'ro,pea Read, Suit, 190, Fort Collin,, CO 80525 970-491-9888 • Fax 970-491-9984 • wwwjrengincering.mm Mr. Steve Olt February 23, 2001 Page 2 of 3 9. Water/Wastewater — these have been addressed on the revised plans (In addition, we have added notes to the drawings regarding landscape / utility separations and we have adjusted our landscaping in response to the W/WW comments) 10. Natural Resources a. Trash enclosures have been labeled (they were previously shown) b. Trash enclosures will provide room for recycling C. Trash enclosures are adequately screened 11. Utility Education Specialist — We have added notes to our drawings regarding water conservation standards. 12. Traffic Operations Comments - these have been addressed on the revised plans (We have revised the drive in front of the building in response to Eric's comments and have extended our left turn lane at the entrance to exceed 270') 13_ Transportation Planning Comments - these have been addressed on the revised plans (We have a continuous sidewalk system around the building but have eliminated sidewalks west of our parking lot based on a meeting held with City staff, We have extended sidewalk to north edge of site) 14. City Forester Comments — the landscape plans have been revised to address the comments 15. Technical Services (Mapping) Department Comments a. The legal description has been revised to show measured courses b. The required plat statements have been added C. A vicinity map has been added d. The plat -has been revised to look like a final plat C. The quality of the plat has been improved 16. Transfort Comments — See response 8. 17. Street Oversizing Comments — fee comments are noted Engineering 18. Access easement has been added 19. See response 8. 20. Subdivision plat has been revised to show correct language, etc. 21. The revised plans show this information 22. All improvements are proposed within the limits of the site or within public right-of-way 23. The south access point has been eliminated so there will be no left turn conflict. The north access does not propose any conflicts and this has been agreed to by Eric Bracke and Matt Delich. 24. The parking lot layout was approved by the Director of CPES 25. They will be raised 26. The building envelope has been added Transportation Planning 27. Bicycle parking has been added 28. Sidewalk system has been modified slightly to meet the criteria 29. The requirements for the pedestrian connection to the Mason Street Corridor have been agreed to by the City and Developer and are shown on the plans 30. These sidewalks have been straightened Mr. Steve Olt February 23, 2001 Page 3 of 3 31. The sidewalk along College Avenue has been extended north of Rutgers 32. The crosswalk will be enhanced 33. Noted 34. Ramps have been added Stormwater 35. The only existing "on -site detention" on the site was provided by the area inlets and subsequent parking lot pending. The same number of area inlets will remain, with the existing ponding being provided as the inlets and outfall pipes are not being enlarged. Natural Resources 36. Trash enclosures are provided (and labeled), including provisions for recycling Planning 37. We have adjusted our landscape islands to respond to this comment. We have, however, left I parking row with 16 cars which is adjacent to our well landscaped plaza 38. See response 6. 39. See response 6 These comments were prepared by JR engineering and Ed Zdenek. We look forward to working with the City to finalize this project. If you have any questions or comments, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 491-9888. Thank you. Sincerely, \ q , (6e_zk� David W. Klockeman, PE Division Manager cc: Ed Zdenek, :ZTI Group Ty Fangman, Dial Companies REVISION ti COMMENT SHEET IAI # 7'r DATE: February 28, 2001 DEPT: Water/Wastewater PROJECT: Wards Redevelopment (University Shopping Center PUD) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, February 28, 2003 ➢ As previously indicated, coordinate landscape design with civil design and provide required landscape/utility separation distances. ➢ Clearly define all aspects of the proposed fire hydrant relocation (i.e. abandoning existing tee, tapping water main, etc). ➢ See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Date: Signature: - CHECK Plat ,RE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIESOFREVISIONS �'S X Plat X Site _Drainage Report _Other X Utility x Redline Utility x Landscape City of Fort Collins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: Engineering PROJECT: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER PUD) **Minor Amendment Routing** All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 14, 2001 No Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** l CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report _ Other I.rti lility Redline Utility Landscape Signature:_ 11T t, ' '=ea; REVISION , . 7777 COMMENT DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: PEA PROJECT: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER PUD) **Minor Amendment Routing** All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 14, 2001 ❑ No Comment ElProblems or Concerns (see below or attached) **,PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE ?MJD Ar€ Poudre Fire Authority has no new comments for this project. Please refer to comments made on 10-23-00. (Comments attached) CHECK IIERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report _ Other DatCfhlity Redline Utility Landscape Sicna=e: PROJECT 6 i•11�•• COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Callins Current Planning DATE: October 11, 2000 TO: PFA PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference ADDRESS NUMERALS: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 5 inch numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). v7 U C c W _! u SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: This proposed building shall be fire sprinklered. 97 U7C 1003._ 9 NOTE: This note pertains to building A. BUILDING AREA: This proposed building exceeds 5000 square feet for type V construction and must be fire contained or fire sprinklered. UBC Table 9E NOTE: This not pertains to building B. Signature CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report Other _Otility _Redline Utility _Landscape N06&bm Cif of Fort Collins Dave Stringer - Re: Old Wards Building Page 1 From: Glen Schlueter To: Dave Stringer, Peter Barnes Date: Tue, May 30, 2000 9:55 AM Subject: Re: Old Wards Building Water Quality: Stormwater encourages that water quality be addressed either by extended detention or some BMPs but unless the site is being regraded and new asphalt placed it is not a requirement. It is grandfathered. Offsite drainage and Arthur Ditch: Actually it is the Sherwood Lateral. It is easily confused since this lateral starts at the Arthur Ditch near Hillpond. Again the site is already developed so the imperviousness is grandfathered. If the total site were redeveloping the runoff could not flow to the ditch. It would have to be conveyed over or under the ditch to Spring Creek. Also there has been some erosion in the railroad ROW Under today's standards there would need to be an easement or License agreement with the Railroad to discharge runoff there and then the outfall would need some work to stabilize it. However if there is no increase in imperviousness this condition is grandfathered but Stormwater would encourage at least stabilization of the outfall system. If internal parking lot landscaping and medians are required, a grading plan is needed to show how the parking lot will drain vvith new medians. I may have given you more information than you wanted. However if there are still questions, let me know. >>> Peter Barnes 05/26 8:34 AM >>> Since the Land Use Code specifically specifies parking stall and drive aisle dimensions, the only way that can be changed is through a modification or a zoning variance, depending on how we process the development app (minor amend. versus type 1). with regards to your question #2, 1 don't know about off -site improvements. But the on -site improvements from my end will probably be limited to landscaping, walkway connections, and facade changes. >>> Dave Stringer 05/25 2:26 PM >>> I have received a letter by way of Greg, from ZTI Group asking 4 questions. Can each of you supply me with the answers they are requesting? Following are the 4 issues: 1 Can we use narrower parking stall widths (i.e. 9' wide by 55' bays), as did DPC in redevelopment of the adjacent Towne Center? 2 Are there any other off -site impacts that we have not thought of other then landscaping, sidewalk and facade changes? If so what would they be? 3. How does the new, water quality standard affect the change of use on this project should we decide to go this route? 4. Are there any unresolved issues that you or Glen Sluter sorry about the spelling, this is verbatim) knows of in relation to the capacity in Arthur Ditch behind the Wards property? Thanks, I need to respond ASAP, so your input is appreciated. Dave CC: Basil Hamdan, Donnie Dustin, Sheri Wamhoff KNOX BOX: Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the tront of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. WATER SUPPLY: Fire hvdrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. No commercial building can be greater then 300 feet from a fire hydrant. i_'K y0 i .2.2. 71 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 28, 2001 DEPT: Water/Wastewater PROJECT: Wards Redevelopment (University Shopping Center PUD) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 ➢ As previously indicated, coordinate landscape design with civil design and provide required landscape/utility separation distances. ➢ As previously indicated, provide utility easements for all existing and proposed water/sewer mains, services, fire hydrants, etc. ➢ Include the following standard details with next submittal: fire hydrant, sanitary sewer bedding. ➢ Clearly define all aspects of the proposed fire hydrant relocation (i.e. abandoning existing tee, tapping water main, etc). i= See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Date: 3 - / Z - CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS X Plat X Site Drainage Report _Other X I Itllity X Redline Utility X Landscape v F t City of Fort Collins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: Trans Planning PROJECT: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER PUD) **Minor Amendment Routing** A I l comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 14, 2001 ElNo Comment ETProblems or Concerns (see below or attached) ' **1pLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** • Site plan is unclear as to if sidewalk is planned all the way around the building site (see redline comments). Existing sidewalk is currently very hit and miss around the north and west sides of building. There needs to be a sidewalk connection made in area indicated on redlines. • Is applicant orienting building to Mason Street Corridor as well as College Avenue? Future Mason Street multi -modal corridor tends itself to orienting west side entrance to the Corridor. Great potential for capture of pedestrian, bicycle and transit ridership. Please call or e-mail if applicant needs more information as to Mason Street Multirodal Corridor plans. It appears that little is being done to capitalize on the Mason corridor. • Still need to show ramps from handicap parking on west side to sidewalk. • Show pedestrian/bicycle connection to the Mason Street Multimodal Corridor (see redline comments). CHECK HERE. IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat K Site Drainage Report _ Other Datl�j4liIV Redline Utility XLandscape Signature: Fort REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: Technical Svs PROJECT: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER PUD) **Minor Amendment Routing** All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 14, 2001 ❑ No Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE Vp ( REFERENCE** �• I'�i' �OC.���LP q i� e'�lt�T Z L4 `4e0 Q itiILI ..,� Gar. ... �� �,� Cq L'l I1 C%� �'L �C GU P (L. LSAT CL S,21 l�oCA CHECK IIERF IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report _ Other Dal 1ejtility Redline Olility Landscape - — Signature: Citv of Fort Collins REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: Stormwater PROJECT: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER PUD) **Minor Amendment Routing** All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 14, 2001 ElNo Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** 1 . The sidewalk detail is incorrect. It needs the detail, D-12, which provides flow in the other direction. RESPONSE: 2. The detail to raise an inlet in the driveway was not provided as requested. RESPONSE: 3. The sub -basin " P' is still not called out as redlined during the last review. RESPONSE: CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS GC. Sieve OLt Plat >s Sitc X Drainage Report Other �e,�1i„}� P1ara vu-.+a �ility X Redline Utility k Landscape 9j aR E,g r. I� t Signature: Collins 4. Need PE stamp and signature on the drainage report. RESPONSE: 5. When Lot 2 is developed it will need to relocate the existing inlet and detention volume. Please indicate area and volume of the water, which will be displaced when the site is developed. There should be mention of this in the drainage report also for future reference. The actual volume calculation could wait until the report is submitted but at least the ponding area needs to be shown and discussion added to the report. RESPONSE: 6. Drainage easements need to be shown on the plat for the existing storm sewer pipes. Twenty feet is the normal easement requirement but may need to be larger it the pipe is deep into the ground. RESPONSE: The landscape plan shows trees on top of the storm sewer. A 10-foot separation is needed in case the pipe needs to be replaced. RESPONSE: 8. Please formally request a variance to the water quality requirements in the drainage report. RESPONSE: Please refer to the redlined plans and report for additional review comments. REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: Transfort PROJECT: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER PUD) .k*Minor Amendment Routing** All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 14, 2001 ElNo Comment Problerns or Concerns (see below or attached) **,PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE' -�C7 , �4o�� H (� �JC Ili�,r� -cal I1E K HERE' IF'i 0U WISH TO R6CG5F COPIES OF REVISIONS "lat file _ Drainage Reoor. _Other 'Idihuascam REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: Transfort PROJECT: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY SHOPPING CENTER PUD) **Minor Amendment Routing** All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: March 14, 2001 El No Comment Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** cr— Iu1AA 1 2L'Ol CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _ Plat Site _ Drainage Report _ Other ? D ttcltjlity Redline Uhlitvr� Landscape Signature:_, of Community Planning and Environmental Services Cun'ent Planning Citv of Fort Collins March 20, 2001 ZTI Group/Architecture c/o Ed Zdenek 2120 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Ed, Staff has reviewed your revisions documentation for the WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (University Center PUD), Minor Amendment that was submitted to the City on February 23, 2001, and is offering the following comments: 1. This property is located on the west side of South College Avenue at the Rutgers Avenue intersection. Prospect Road is approximately 'h mile to the north and Drake Road is approximately 'h mile to the south. The site is in the C - Commercial Zoning District. The proposed "commercial' uses are permitted in this District and can be reviewed administratively as a Minor Amendment. 2. Mike Spurgin of the Post Office stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 3. Michael Chavez of the Poudre Fire Authority stated that PFA has no new comments regarding this project. Please refer to the following comments made on 10/23/00: a. Poudre Fire Authority requires a "Knox Box" to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. b. Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property [South College Avenue], and posted with a minimum of 6" numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). �8I North CoIloge Aeon,w • PO. Boa 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 C. Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. No commercial building can be greater that 300' from a fire hydrant. d. Building A shall be fire sprinklered. e. Building B exceeds 5,000 square feet for Type V construction and must be fire contained or fire sprinklered. Please contact Michael, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 4. A representative of Public Service Company of Colorado stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 5. Peter Barnes of the Zoning Department stated that according to the applicant's comment #6d of the response letter the 36' wide parking bays on the west side of the building have been revised to 38' wide, as required. However, the revised Site Plan (dated 2/23/01) still shows them as being 36' wide (and they scale 36' wide). Please contact Peter, at 221-6760, if you have questions about his comment. 6. Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, stated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. 7. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated that the applicant needs to change the 5 street trees along South College Avenue to another type. The Autumn Purple Ash as shown on the Landscape Plan is not on the City's approved Street Tree List. The street tree selection needs to be from the City's Street Tree List (attached). The following comments/concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review Meeting on March 14, 2001: Engineerinp-/Marc Virata 8. Sidewalks outside of the right-of-way for South College Avenue need to be in a public access easement. Dave Stringer - Re: Old Wards Building Page 1 From: Peter Barnes To: Dave Stringer Date: Fri, May 26, 2000 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Old Wards Building Since the Land Use Code specifically specifies parking stall and drive aisle dimensions, the only way that can be changed is through a modification or a zoning variance, depending on how we process the development app (minor amend. versus type 1). with regards to your question #2, 1 don't know about off -site improvements. But the on -site improvements from my end will probably be limited to landscaping, walkway connections, and facade changes. >>> Dave Stringer O5,125 2:26 PM >>> I have received a letter by way of Greg, from ZTI Group asking 4 questions. Can each of you supply me with the answers they are requesting? Following are the 4 issues: 1. Can we use narrower parking stall widths (i.e. 9' wide by 55' bays), as did DPC in redevelopment of the adjacent Towne Center? 2. Are there any other off -site impacts that we have not thought of other then landscaping, sidewalk and facade changes? If so what would they be? 3. How does the new water quality standard affect the change of use on this project should we decide to go this route? 4. Are there any unresolved issues that you or Glen Sluter sorry about the spelling, this is verbatim) knows of in relation to the capacity in Arthur Ditch behind the Wards property? Thanks, I need to respond ASAP, so your input is appreciated. Dave CC: Glen Schlueter, Sheri Wamhoff 9. A Development Agreement may be needed if the bus stop on the South College Avenue frontage is still needed. 10. Who will maintain Tract A as shown on the subdivision plat? Maybe the use should not be restricted. 11. The access into the "Existing Building" on the north side of the entry drive at Rutgers Avenue may have to be closed. Please contact Matt Baker, at 224-6108, and Eric Bracke, at 224-6062, to determine the status of this access. 12. Off -site construction easements are needed on adjacent properties. 13. Revisions are needed to the General Notes on the utility plans. 14. Does the previously identified 30' setback from South College Avenue include parking? 15. The enhanced crosswalk at the South College Avenue — Rutgers Avenue intersection must be in a public access easement. The City will not maintain this crosswalk. Transportation Planning/Mark Jackson 16. Ensure that the sidewalk system on -site is continuous and consistent. This includes a sidewalk around all sides of the building. The Site Plan should show the sidewalk. 17. The future bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Mason Street Multi - modal Corridor needs to be built to the property line by this development. There must be a mechanism established to build the connection when the corridor is in. 18. This site and development plan should include a sidewalk connection from the future Mason Street Multi -modal Corridor to South College Avenue. 19. Ramps to the handicapped parking spaces must be provided and shown on the plans. Stormwater/Glen Schlueter 20. The proposed new Pad Site B is on a sump area and on top of an inlet. This essentially eliminates the necessary on -site detention. There needs to be compensation for this. Natural Resources/Doug Moore 21. There may be some conflict with the existing trees along the west property line. Planning 22. There are :more than 15 parking spaces in a row without some form of landscaping on the north side of the site. Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the LUC requires that parking bays extend no more than 15 parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula. This is a repeat comment. 23. The west elevation elevation of the building is still of concern to staff, whose position is that it does not comply with the standards as set forth in Section 3.5.3(D) of the LUC. This section deals with facade treatment (all sides), building entrances, base and top treatments, etc. Also, the elevations do not satisfy the requirements set forth in Section 3.5.4 - Large Retail Establishments of the LUC. More building articulation, meeting the standards referenced in the aforementioned sections of the LUC, is needed. 24. The "new" landscape treatment along the west property line still appears to be minimal. Three trees are being added, but additional plant materials should be included. The existing stand of trees off -site along the west property line are probably short-lived and do not satisfy the adequate screening requirement. The Mason Street Multi -Modal Corridor along the :railroad tracks will become a reality in the near future and there needs to be proper and adequate buffering between this site and the corridor. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Revisions based on responses to these comments should be resubmitted to the Current Planning Department as soon as possible to enable this Minor Amendment request to move forward in a timely fashion. Please see the attached Revisions Routing Sheet for documents to resubmit. Please contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting soon to discuss staff's comments and concerns, if necessary. Sincerely, Ateve Olt Project Planner cc: Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director Engineering Zoning Stormwater Water/ Wastewater Advance Manning Natural Resources Traffic Operations Transportation Planning REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: September 19, 2001 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #40-01 Wards Redevelopment Minor Amendment All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: October 10, 2001 ElNo Conunent Probletns or Concerns (see below or attached) **PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** �. LE6AL /7oc"GnoT C[CSE, Lr/AG /5 rl/ ��� WET/-/ �E102D frEH-+� �.. 1�/or A6, Dc;—c 2 13C UN�)4 %ton �P,3 0 0 �r Uri CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS p'fItVat _ Site _ Drainage Report � JL- Citv of Port Col tins Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Stormwater Utility Date: October 9, 2001 Project: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD) - MINOR AMENDMENT, #40-01 All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: October 10, 2001 Mote - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque N. A full utility plan and drainage report review will be needed before Lot 2 is developed if it is not accounted for with this submittal. 7 Please provide a more detail drawing and description for the swale improvements on the west side of the building that will help aid in water quality. This will help ensure level of functionality and quality of construction. W Please provide 10-feet separation between all storm sewers and trees. Repeat Comment. M Please provide a detail to raise the Inlet in the entrance driveway. Repeat Comment. Signature 1 Date Ib/q�� CHECK HERE IF YOU \FISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other Y_ Utility _� Redline Utility Landscape CC. Sda,, ot.-I Page I Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Citv of Fort Collins Department: Water Wastewater Date: October 10, 2001 Project: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD) - MINCR AMENDMENT, #40-01 All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: October 10, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill IK As previously indicated provide the required landscape/utility separation distance on the landscape plans. 19 Building envelope for lot 2 may not extend into existing utility easement. Curb stop and meter pit may not be place in building envelope. 20 Provide utility easements for all water mains, sewer mains, fire hydrants and curb stops. SignatureDate c 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 Date: October 18, 2001 Project: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD) - MINOR AMENDMENT, #40-01 All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: October 10, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata 13 Provide a copy of the plat on the utility plan set. 14 It appears that construction will occur outside of the property boundaries for the site. Provide evidence of the offsite easements for construction prior to acceptance of the utility plans. 15 The provided detail for the access ramp on D-13 shows sidewalks that lead to the corner of the intersection and does not show the detached sidewalks continuing straight across. This is shown correctly on the plan set, the detail just needs to be modified on the details sheet.16 Bonnet Bolt is no longer used for benchmark purposes, provide two benchmarks as established in the City of Fort Collins Vertical Control.17 It is my understanding that per Transportation Planning, additional sidewalk connections should be made, with portions of sidewalk to be built at a later date and funds for the sidewalk escrowed by the Developer. As such, as Development Agreement may need to be completed for the project. Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _— Site Drainage Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 21 A Development Construction Permit will be required for the project prior to any construction. Page 2 REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 21, 2001 TO: Engineering PROJECT: #40-01 Wards Redevelopment Minor Amendment All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: February 6, 2002 El No Comment ❑ Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) *"PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** DANK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPES OF REVISIONSSignature: - -Aa Plat Site Drainage Report Other Utility Redline Utility Landscape REVISION COMMENT SHEET DATE: December 21, 2001 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #40-01 Wards Redevelopment Minor Amendment All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: February 6, 2002 M V ❑ No Comment 1 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) "PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR REDLINES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE** �. G�GRG DOeS No r CL05E, F�irs�Ogey G'ZdSES 6/S1AI& 2EGa,e� p1sT�NGE 5_ Z/Vbino.ic T74 6u'cgo /�/}ca " %r2cro TI �Cc U fidti T a r UAW HERE IF YOU WISH TO RI _ Plat site Utility _ Redline Utility _ Drainage Report _ Other Landscape Dave Stringer - Re: Old Wards Building Page 1 From: Sheri Wamhoff To: Dave Stringer, Glen Schlueter, Peter Barnes Date: Tue, May 30, 2000 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Old Wards Building I don't know of any off -site improvments. We did want a sidewalk connection to the mutimodal corridor along the north end of this property, but they can probably do that without going off site. Sheri >>> Dave Stringer 05(25 2:26 PM >>> I have received a letter by way of Greg, from ZTI Group asking 4 questions. Can each of you supply me with the answers they are requesting? Following are the 4 issues: 1. Can we use narrower parking stall widths (i.e. 9' wide by 55' bays), as did DPC in redevelopment of the adjacent Towne Center? 2. Are there any other off -site impacts that we have not thought of other then landscaping, sidewalk and facade changes? If so what would they be? 3 How does the new water quality standard affect the change of use on this project should we decide to go this route? 4. Are there any unresolved issues that you or Glen Sluter sorry about the spelling, this is verbatim) knows of in relation to the capacity in Arthur Ditch behind the Wards property? Thanks, I need to respond ASAP, so your input is appreciated. Dave January 16, 2002 J R ENGINEERING Mr. Steve Olt, Project Planner City of Fort Collins — CPES Current Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Re: Wards Redevelopment— Responses for October 19, 2001 Review Comments Dear Steve: The following are responses to the City's review comment letter of October 19, 2001. Current Planning 24 Information received in a letter from Burlington Northern I. Boundary shown on plat is from deed, Title Commitment and previous plat. Railroad will be coordinated with on this issue. 2.& 3. These items are not being addressed as the City will address these as part of the Mason Street Corridor Project (per Mark Jackson). Technical Services 25 1. The legal description is based on the record deed. The property does close based on the measured dimensions. Our surveyors insist that this is OK. We will schedule a meeting to discuss. 2. All boundary monuments are now described. 3. The red -lined plat comments have been addressed. Public Service 26 1. Trec planting within 4 feet of gas lines — A utility coordination meeting has been set for Friday, January 18, 2002, to hopefully bring this item to closure. 2. The Developer acknowledges that any relocation of gas lines will be at their expense. Engineering 13 A copy of the Plat has been added to the Utility Plan set 14 Off -site temporary construction easement have been added to the plans and are being prepared under separate document. 15 The ramp detail has been modified on the plan set. 16 The Benchmarks have been revised. Mr. Steve Olt January 16, 2002 Page 2 of 3 17 Additional coordination has taken place with Transportation Planning and the sidewalks as shown are acceptable. 21 The Developer acknowledges that a Development Construction Permit will be required for the project prior to any construction. Light and Power 5 No Comments Natural Resources 10 No issues PFA I I No new comments All previous comments have been addressed or acknowledged. Police I I After further discussion, it was determined that the lighting plan was not required. Stormwater Utility 6 Additional information and requirements relative to development of Lot 2 have been added to the plans and Drainage Report 7 Additional information has been added to the Drainage Plan and Report for the swale at the rear of the property. 8 Tree Separation from storm sewer lines - A utility coordination meeting has been set for Friday, January 18, 2002, to hopefully bring this item to closure. 9 A detail and additional notes have been added from raising the grate on the existing area inlet. Transportation Planning 22 An additional hike rack has been added on the west side of the building. Water / Wastewater 18 Tree Separation from water/wastewater lines - A utility coordination meeting has been set for Friday, January 18, 2002, to hopefully bring this item to closure. 19 The building envelope for Lot 2 has been removed. 20 Additional utility casements have been added to the enclose all utilities. Zoning I The building envelope for Lot 2 has been deleted. 2 The It(' spaces have been relocated at the rear of the building to be adjacent to ramps. 3 Note 13 has been revised as requested. 4 The monument sign has been removed from the elevations. Additional Comments from Staff Review on October 10, 2001: Stormwater 1. See previous response for addressing stormwater concerns on Lot 2. Mr. Steve Olt January 16, 2002 Page 3 of 3 2. See above for information relative to water quality. 3. Landscape separation — see above. Engineering I . See above for discussion on off -site construction easements. 2. Sidewalk and intersection details (ramps) have been added to the plans. 3. The Developer acknowledges that a Development Agreement may be needed for this project. Transportation Planning I. Additional coordination has taken place on pedestrian connectivity and we arc confident this issue has been resolved. These comments were prepared by JR Engineering and Ed Zdenck. We look forward to working with the City to finalize this project. If you have any questions or comments, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 491-9888. Thank you. Sincerely, �J. Davi Klee cntan, P Division Manager cc: Ed Zdenck, ZTI Group Citv of Fort Collins Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Water Wastewater Date: February 8, 2002 Project: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD) - MINOR AMENDMENT, #40-01 All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: February 6, 2002 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Jeff Hill 20 Provide utility easements for all water mains, sewer mains, fire hydrants and curb stops. 29 At the utility coordination meeting we had discussed abandoning the existing 8-inch water main which extends from the eastside of College Avenue to the 8-inch water main which runs North and South through the parking area. Do to the uncertainty of the connections related to this main, it would be best to coordinate all abandonment and relocation of existing facilities with the City Utility crews. Please include a note on the utility plans, which clearly reflect this. It was also discussed that the existing service would be relocated or that the trees in the median would be shifted to the east to avoid the utility/landscape conflict. If you believe this is not what was discussed please contact Roger Buffington or myself at 221-6854 or 221-6674 respectfully to discuss this issue. -Sr -c) 2 Signature ij Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ X Site Drainage Report Other Utility __ Redline Utility Landscape Page I Project Comments Sheet (Mnmm- Selected Departments Cityof Fort Collins Department: Engineering Date: February 14, 2002 Project: WARDS REDEVELOPMENT (UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD) - MINOR AMENDMENT, #40-01 All comments must be received by STEVE OLT in Current Planning no later than the staff review meeting: October 10, 2001 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata 14 It appears that construction will occur outside of the property boundaries for the site. Provide evidence of the offsite easements for construction prior to acceptance of the utility plans. (2/13) Just for clarification, these easements do not need to be easements dedicated to the City, strictly easements between property owners are sufficient. 15 The provided detail for the access ramp on D-13 shows sidewalks that lead to the comer of the intersection and does not show the detached sidewalks continuing straight across. This is shown correctly on the plan set, the detail just needs to be modified on the details sheet. (2/13) Remove 'Draft" from this detail that was added. 21 A Development Construction Permit will be required for the project prior to any construction. (2/13) Information regarding the DCP is returned with this submittal. The contractor/engineer may wish to submit the information necessary to process the DCP. 30 Signature Date ,HECK E[EREyIF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other_ Utility Redline Utility ✓Landscape Page 1 A meeting is being scheduled to finalize the plat, prior to the hearing for the plat. 31 Mylar submittal for the utility plans is sufficient, provided all other comments pertaining to the utility plan set are addressed. 32 The note on the site plan for Lot 2 should be revised as the future review may not be Type I based upon the proposed use. Page 2 111N TRIP 1 Project Comments Sheet Lm Cil, of hurt Collins Selected Departments �_ Department: Engineering Date: August 20, 2003 Project: UNIVERSITY CENTER PUD (WARDS REDEVELOPMENT) - MINOR AMEN DMENT/REPLAT, #40-01 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 14 Created: 10/10/2001 It appears that construction will occur outside of the property boundaries for the site. Provide evidence of the offsite easements for construction prior to acceptance of the utility plans. (2/13) Just for clarification, these easements do not need to be easements dedicated to the City, strictly casements between property owners are sufficient. [8/14] These deeds were received from the previous consultant in charge of the entitlement. They are being returned to the consultant for recordation at the County Clerk and Recorder as well as for the consultant to analyze if the easements are still valid and necessary based on the revised drawings. Please resubmit recorded copies of these in advance or in conjunction with construction drawing mylars and ensure these are reflected with reception numbers on the plat. Number: 21 Created: 10/18/2001 A Development Construction Permit will be required for the project prior to any construction. (2/13) Information regarding the DCP is returned with this submittal. The contractor/engineer may wish to submit the information necessary to process the DCP. [8/14] This information can be provided again if misplaced from the previous submittal. Number: 33 Created: 8/14/2003 Please indicate on the plans the amount of reconstruction taking place. A demo plan is ideal, but written indication on the existing plans would suffice for Engineering provided other departments are satisfied. Number: 35 Signature /Plat Utility Created: 8/14/2003 Date HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS /Site Drainage Report Other, Redline Utility /Landscape Page 1 Please provide a Type III barricade at the termination of the public walk running north along College Avenue. Number: 36 Created: 8/15/2003 Are the symbols redlined on the overall utility plan the existing traffic signal poles? They scale on the drawings as being 25'+ from the flowline of College, it appears to be much closer based on field visits. There is also a pole pedestal that is apparently not reflected on the drawings. Please ensure that all existing facilities along College are indicated on the drawings. It would help identify whether any conflicts exist between the new sidewalk and the existing facilities. Because the driveway appears to be narrowing, the placement of the existing pedestrian pole may be an issue. It would also be of benefit to show the landscaping along college north of this site to see how the sidewalk will dead-end to the north. Number: 37 Created: 8/15/2003 The proposed reduction of the existing driveway on College across from Rutgers wasn't understood previously and results in some issues that need to be clarified on the plans: - The pedestrian signal on the northwest corner of the intersection will need to be moved south to coincide wiith the new street crossing location. - The pedestrian rarnp on the northwest corner should also allow for movements across College, as is shown on the southwest corner of the intersection. - The existing crosswalk striping across College on the north side of the intersection will likely need to be realigned as a result of the driveway reduction. This should be reflected on the plans. - Intended lane usage on the private drive should be explained (three lanes, two lanes?) This will help in anailyzing whether lane alignments across the intersection might be an issue as well as whether there might be concerns about turning movements to/from College. - Will the signal heads for the signal poles located on the College Avenue median need to be relocated, or the signal mast itself need to be lengthened in order to get the signals to line up with the lanes from westbound Rutgers proceeding straight into the private drive? - With the creation of new diagonal parking spaces where part of the driveway off of College used to be, it appears that this results in an a movement that will require people who park in these spaces to exit through the Safelite Glass Company. It would appear to be more beneficial if the parking spaces were not diagonal. Is the glass company aware and wanting this change to diagonal parking which would take traffic out through their property onto College? Topic: Plat Number: 34 Created: 8/14/2003 Please move the maintenance and repair guarantee language to be directly before the owner signature, this clarifies who is the "Undersigned" on the document. Page 2 PROJECT COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning DATE: October 11, 2000 DEPT: ENGINEERING PROJECT: University Shopping Center— Wards Redevelopment PLANNER: Steve Olt ENGINEER: Marc Virata All comments must be received by: October 25, 2000 ❑ No Problems 0 Problems or Concerns (see below or attached) Comments: a. 100' setbaek from thestree! centerline of College Averme, as such, there need'sio be, 30, h 1 f thp, • 'I_ _,l.�e_ sidewalk simil .. .knees 1 T id and .1 V h d 10' from the College 6tyenue street flovil:.,�ca malH�aAeriai-r-4ad Nhovlidey,a1L :, o eollege north of !be noAhefla driveNN a). • Provide ollsitc easements for construction prior to acceptance of the utility plans. • The traffic study illustrated the need for a minimum left turn lane out from the site to northbound college needing to be 270 feet long. As such there should not be any curb openings on the north main drive aisle entrance off of College Avenue. (VERIFY?) .,..�and Repair Guafantee as �Aell as Notice of other Doeuments languag • The sidewalk across the southern access drive should continue straight across, not angle out towards the street as there is no need for the pedestrian to cross College Avenue at this location. • Provide a design for the sidewalk access ramp similar to D-13 with the detached sidewalks continuing straight across. (Shown correctly, but now needs detail.) • 'the existing transit stop needs to be upgraded to a transit shelter in accordance with level of service standards for transit. • Who maintains the Tract on the plat? < • Revise General Notes. • Bonnet Bolt not used for benchmark, City of Fort Collins Vertical Control. - t1 • Crosswalk detail? OK? Sra, " _ C7t��v Date: March 14, 2001 Signatur _ PLEASE. SEND COPIES OF MARKED REVISIONS ❑ Plat ❑ Site ❑ Utility ❑ Landscape ❑ Drainag eport ❑ NO COMMENTS -SUBMIT MYLARS PROJECT (izn, COMMENT SHEET City of Font Collins Current PlanniniF DATE: October I , 2000 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference 6L Signature CHECK IIERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat Site Drainage Report Other _Utility Redlinc Utility Landscape Citv of Fort Collins (A WN PROJECT soff"WEAM0,01 COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current PlanninLy DATE: October 111 2000 TO: Stormwater Util PROJECT: University Shopping Center -Wards Redevelopment MINOR AMENDMENT All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: October 25, 2000 Note- Please identify your redlines for future reference Please add a note to the plans stating that approval of this plan does not constitute approval for the construction of the Future Lot 2 Pad shown. That project would need to undergo a separate approval process, that will address drainage and erosion control issues associated with its development. There are several spots along the proposed parking islands that would create low spots that would trap flows along these islands. Please modify. Please add a drainage summary table to the drainage plan. Label missing drainage Basin J. Add details for the proposed sidewalk culverts. Add detail for the propose raising of the inlet grate along the entrance drive. Please address better how water quality will be addressed on this site. If it will not be addressed, please formally request a variance for this standard. Please address all redlines on drainage plan. ho/2 CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS c/41at V3ite ✓Drainage Report Other _Jtility ,,�dline Utility landscape l (mac✓,'e ai City of Fort Collins