The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFAIRVIEW SHOPPING CENTER FILING FOUR (1409 W. ELIZABETH MULTI-FAMILY) - PDP - PDP120009 - CORRESPONDENCE -Department: Traffic Operation t_ °o s4,� Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221.6820, wstanford(a),fcgov.com Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/0912012 04/0912012: Please describe how traffic is planned to use the shared access drive adjacent to Wendy's? Is entering traffic to use the western side of the dbl yellow striped lane and then crossover to the east side of the dbl yellow to access the Wendy's drive thru? At the southern part of the drive-thru area will two-way, non-Wendy's traffic be allowed? Is exiting traffic (north bound) allowed to use the shared drive and exit onto Elizabeth? If allowed, which side of the dbl. yellow striping is it to exit from? It seems confusing what movements may be allowed, \� where they will drive and how will it be controlled. Please provide discussion of how the !` J shared (Wendy's) access is planned to function. PlJ` �o��—Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering 57(t/" Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221.6854, rbuffinaton(@Icoov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/03/2012 04/03/2012: Add note to coordinate with Water Utilities (970-416-2165) on the abandonment of the 1" water service. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/03/2012 04/03/2012: See reclined plans for other comments. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 0610512012 06/05/2012: Ready for hearing. Will check remaining comments at final. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, 'countv(gifcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 03/2912012 O6/06/2012: There are still minor line over text issues. 03/29/2012: There is a minor line over text issue. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 03/29/2012 O6/06/2012: These have not been provided. These are required per Development Review Submittal Requirement 3(v). 03/29/2012: Please provide monument records for all public land comers shown on the Plat. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 03/29/2012 06/06/2012: This has not been completely addressed. 03/29/2012: See redlines regarding the Basis Of Bearings statement. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 O6/06/2012: THe subdivision Plat boundary does not close. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 O6/06/2012: Please add "(M) measured" to all bearings & distances on the boundary. Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 06/06/2012: Please describe the NW corner of the outer boundary, and add it to the legend. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 06/06/2012: Are the 10" utility easements at the north & south ends of the property existing? Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 06/06/2012: There is no monument shown at the SE corner of the boundary. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 06/06/2012: Please add the internal distance along the west boundary line. See redlines. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 06/00012: Please see the note & distances along the east line of the boundary. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 06/0612012: Please correct the Surveyor's name in the Basis of Bearings statement. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221.6820, wstanford(a)fcgov.com Topic: Traffic Impact Study Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamargue(aftgov.com Topic: Floodplain Submittals' in preparation of the plans. It can be found at http://www.fogov.coMublities/what-we-do/stromwater/Flood ing/form s-documents. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/04/2012 04/0412012: Stormwater is ready for a hearing. Comments may apply during final compliance Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, icountvGDfcaov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 06/06/2012 06/06/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet PDP-1. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 03129/2012 06/0612012: We were not routed plans this round, so we don't know if these issues were corrected. 03/2912012: Please add descriptions to the benchmarkson sheet C0.0. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 03/29/2012 06/0612012: We were not routed plans this round, so we don't know 9 these issues were corrected. 0312912012: The bearing in the Basis Of Bearings statement on sheet C0.0 doesn't match the Subdivision Plat. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 03/29/2012 06/0612012: We were not routed plans this round, so we don't know if these issues were corrected. 03/2912012: There are line over text & text over text issues on sheets CIA C4.0 & C4.1. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 03/2912012 06/0612012: We were not routed plans this round, so we don't know if these issues were corrected. 0312912012: There are line over text issues on sheet E0.1. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 03/2912012 O6/0612012: We were not routed plans this round, so we don't know if these issues were corrected. 0312912012: Please add a north arrow to sheet E0.1. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 03/29/2012 06/0612012: This has not been addressed. LS 20123 is R. A. Bradshaw. 03/29/2012: Please correct the surveyor's name at the center of section 15. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416.2418, wlamargue(lfcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04106/2012 1. A request has been made to allow a 2,000-3,000 s.f. basement for storage. Per Section 10-38, no new basement may be constructed below the regulatory flood protection elevation in a new residential structure. 2. No -Rise Certification is needed for the work proposed in the floodway (replacement of the sidewalk with an 84 attached walk) along Elizabeth Street. Technical analysis will be needed to justify the no -rise condition. 3. The floodway and flood fringe boundaries must be included on the plat. Include a note to inform that the boundaries are from the proposed waiver request and explain why the current effective model is not being used. Also include the name of the City Basin (Canal Importation) and the City Benchmark and its associated elevation. 4. The notes from the Floodplain Exhibit (Sheet C4.1) should also be included on the plat. 5. NAVD88 elevations are not required in City Basins, only FEMA basins. Please remove NAVD88 elevations from the Floodplain Exhibit, etc. 6. The Drainage Letter does not have any floodplain information within the body of the letter. Please add the information requested within the'City's Floodplain Review Checklist 100% Development Review Submittals'. Also within the letter, please explain why the floodplain waiver is needed, how it will be obtained and how it will be used, etc. 7. Please note on the plans that the floodplain boundaries, cross-section, base flood elevations, etc. are based upon the waiver request and not on the current effective model. 8. The boundaries and locations of the cross sections and BFE's that are shown on the Floodplain Exhibit (Sheet C4.1) appear to be from the current effective model, while the elevations noted are from the waiver request. All of this information should match what is proposed in the waiver request. 9. The HVAC shown on the Floodplain Exhibit (Sheet C4.1) is shown at the same elevation as the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. We suggest that the equipment be elevated more than that. If there is any sort of error during construction that results in the equipment being less than the RFPE, it will be have to me moved prior to the issuance of the Elevation Certificate. That could be very expensive and time consuming. Somewhere in the submittal a note was included that stated that the HVAC equipment was to be located on the roof. If that is the case, remove the HVAC from the Floodplain Exhibit. 10. Please note all red -lined comments on the plat, site plan and utility plans and make corrections as indicated. 11. Please refer to the City's'Floodplain Review Checklist 100% Development Review Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamargue(a)fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221.6567, mvirata(@.fc-gov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/04/2012 06/05/2012: The site plan drawing doesn't show concrete sidewalk across the driveways, typically a note indicates concrete to property line for the driveways. 04/04/2012: Both drive approaches would need to have additional concrete added in order for the sidewalk to lead to a concrete section, not partial concrete/asphalt. The access ramp leading to a curb for the eastern exit driveway is awkward as well with the curb needing to be pulled back. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/04/2012 O6/05/2012: The plat language appears to be the same and has not been revised. 04/04/2012: The plat language has been updated. Please provide the more updated certificate of dedication, repair and maintenance language. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/04/2012 O6/05/2012: Gamed over for reference. 04/04/2012: The private access and shared parking easement indicated on the plat would need to be recorded prior to the recordation of the plat. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/04/2012 06/05/2012: The site plan should show concrete scoring indicative of the sidewalk intending to meander around the relocated light pole. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 06/05/2012 06/05/2012: The site plan should label the existing and proposed property lines to illustrate where the property boundary situates in relation to the proposed sidewalk design. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/29/2012 0512912012: Relocation of the streetlight at Elizabeth St. will be at the expense of the developer. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.416.2864, rgonzales(Dpoudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1. Comment Originated: 03/27/2012 03/2712012: A communication evaluation is required for this 3-story edifice to validate fire department communications. If not, a bi-directional antenna is required to enhance PFA communications within and out of the building. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: MarcVirata, 970.221.6567, mvirata(aDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/04/2012 06/0512012: The revised site plan along with the variance request generally appears acceptable. Please verify the intent with a couple of existing items: 1) The label of the fire hydrant shown on the site plan is "relocated fire hydrant", is it intended to be moved, or kept in the same location, which appears to be in intention based upon the measurement? 2) There is an existing manhole directly west of the main driveway and south of the existing sidewalk, is it intended that this is relocated, otherwise the sidewalk/truncated dome on the west side of the driveway would conflict. 3) The water meter shown on the drawing appears to be in measure, about 1 foot into the sidewalk, is the intention to keep the meter in the sidewalk? 4) The indication of the retaining wall to be flush with the sidewalk and provide elevation from the tree roots? 04/042012: The proposal of an 8 foot attached sidewalk is of question. The City's view is that (per the Conceptual Review comments) an attached sidewalk matching the Campus West Redevelopment is the ideal specification for an attached sidewalk. This sidewalk dimension for the Campus West Redevelopment is 12 feet and ideally this proposal should match this width (and is also the proposed width of the redevelopment property next door). The site visit with Northern and Brinkman identified some potential restriction points to meeting the ideal width: the tree in front of the Wendy's and a light pole along with a fire hydrant. We were realizing that the tree in front of Wendy's would likely need to narrow from an ideal width in order to not impact the tree but thought that the 12 foot width could be likely achieved along the rest of the corridor. The light pole and fire hydrant, while being existing restriction points, we did not necessarily conclude that these appurtenances could stay as is. With the drawing submitted it shows that with the 8 foot attached sidewalk, the light pole would be fully in the sidewalk and the fire hydrant is partially in the sidewalk as well. The City would conclude that these appurtenances should be moved as they're awkwardly situated in the 8 foot attached sidewalk, which would have the design then look towards more of the ideal sidewalk width. (Doug Martine with Light and Power noted that the cost to move the pole so its not within/abutting the sidewalk is no different to achieve 2 foot separation from the proposed 8 foot sidewalk to vs. a more ideal sidewalk width with further separation.) We would need to evaluate any proposal that does not incorporate the 12' attached sidewalk through a variance request in coordination with Planning. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416-2283, clevingston(),fcgov.com VA Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 06/05/2012 rfNOOVA C 06105/2012: Regarding Roger Buffington's comment requesting showing the water and sewer lines on the landscape plan, I don't see those. This may be important because if a tree on the south edge of the property is precluded because of these lines, that is an important detail to know prior to hearing... Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221.6567, mvirata(a)fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04104/2012 O6/05/2012: Carried over for review at Final. 0410412012: Please indicate north flowline information and roadway lane striping on Elizabeth Street to ascertain how the approximate area of the proposed patch situates with the "as -built" condition of Elizabeth Street. Topic: General City of �Fort Collins June 06, 2012 Dave Derbes Brinkman Partners, LLC 3003 E Harmony Rd, Suite 300 Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: 1409 W Elizabeth Street Student Apartments, PDP120009, Round Number 2 Community Development and Neighborhood services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6760 970.224.6134 - fax kgov com/eevefopmentrevlew Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Courtney Levingston, at 970416-2283 or clevingston@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970-416.2283, clevingston(Mfcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04102/2012 06/0512012: Please provide the 2nd round submittal digitally prior to hearing. Uploading to the City's FTP site by selecting the "run" option from your computers start menus, copy and pasting the text: explorer.exe ftp://gw-upload:off98ice@ns2.fcgov.com/ into the run box, creating a new subfolder named 1409 W. Elizabeth 2nd Round Submittal under the Current Planning - Don't Delete, and placing everything you submitted for second round in that folder would be an easy way to accomplish this. 0410212012: We will need a colored rendering of the elevations prior to hearing to assist in assessing compatibility outlined in Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/03/2012 04104/2012: Staff is wondering if bollards are the best option to contain C.B.i£Potts spill over parking. Would signage be a more appropriate first step and see if that addresses any potential issues? While there is nothing that I am aware of in the Code that precludes bollards (no PFA issues), Staff suggests reconsidering the bollard approach. \�S Conn ent Number: 4 Comment Originated: 06/05/2012 0610512012: Engineering comments will still need to be addressed (informally) preferably prior to hearing. Per LUC, we need the 2 week notification period for public hearing. Thursday, June 21 st will not work because of Planning and Zoning Board that night. The fourth week in June (25th?) is the soonest option.