Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutASPEN HEIGHTS STUDENT HOUSING - PDP - PDP110018 - CORRESPONDENCE -City of Planning, Development & Tran rtation Services FortCollins Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 fcgov.com (12-29-2011) Building Permit Pre -Submittal Meeting Pre -Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early on in the design, that the new commercial or multi -family projects are on track to complying with all of the adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early to mid -design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the Current Planning conceptual review meeting. Applicants of new commercial or multi -family projects are advised to call 416-2341 to schedule a pre - submittal meeting. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage and type of construction being proposed. Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes as amended: 2009 International Building Code (IBC) 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2009 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2009 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2009 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI Al 17.1-2003. Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF. Frost Depth: 30 inches. Wind Load: 100- MPH 3 Second Gust Exposure B. Seismic Design: Category B. Climate Zone: Zone 5 Energy Code Use 1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2009 IRC Chapter 11 or 2009 IECC Chap 4. 2. Multi -family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2009 IECC Chapter 4. 3. Commercial and Multi -family 4 stories and taller: 2009 IECC Chapter 5. Fort Collins Green Code Amendments effective starting 1-1-2012. A copy of these requirements can be obtained at the Building Office or contact the above phone number. Aspen Heights, Project specific concerns: 1. Colorado state law CRS-9-5 will require 96 accessibility points be met for 221 dwelling units provided. For example it would take approx. 32 type B multi -story units to achieve 96 points. 2. 2009 IBC chap 11 requires at least one type A accessible unit and all other units must be type B accessible. Multi -story units can use the exception for type B however the state point minimum must still be met. City of Fort Collins Building Services Plan Review 416-2341 City of Fort Collins Current Planning PO Box 580 . Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750. 970.224.6134 - fax DATE: December 22, 2011 TO: Building Inspection PROJECT PLANNER: Ted Shepard PROJECT COMMENT SHEET PDP110018 Aspen Heights Student Housing Type I Please return all comments to the project planner no later than the staff review meeting: January 11, 2012 Please Enter comments in Accela V360 Note --Please identify your redlines for future reference ❑ No Problems Problems or Concerns (see below, attached, or Accela) See a-tfecC--4cd je7�tie r- Pzk 5 5 /7 oVIah 4 Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals(cDfcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.5 There shall be enough areas provided for the Trash/Recycling needs of the project and residents. There are only eight trash/recycling enclosures identified on the plans this is not enough to meet the needs of the project neither is the location convenient for all the tenants. The project needs more trash/recycling enclosures and more locations to be conveniently accessible for all tenants. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals(@fcqov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(E) All Development in the CCN shall also comply with the North College Avenue Corridor Plan to the extent the plan applies to the property to be developed. The entire 31 acres of the development is within one-half mile of North College Avenue which is contained within the North College Avenue Corridor Plan boundaries. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 3.2.1 (C) A detailed landscaping plan is required at the Final Development Plan stage. The typical landscaping treatments currently provided in the Project Development Plan is not enough detail to say if it meets the standards of the Land Use Code. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.2 Access, circulation, and parking for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles shall be provided. Landscape islands that break up the parking lot spaces should line up with each other to provide a straight crossing for the pedestrian reducing interaction with vehicles. Two Pedestrian/bicycle bridges should be placed to cross over the 50ft drainage easement. One on either side of Lupine Drive. Preferably on the south end of the drainage continuing the pedestrian walk from east to west and one continuing the pedestrian walk from east to west about 100ft north of Lupine Drive. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.2(C)(5)(b) Pedestrian crossing drive aisles or internal roadways require the crosswalk to be continuous across the drive aisles/ways. This means the change in grade shall be for the vehicle and not the pedestrian. This will apply to all pedestrian crosses over any drive way/aisle. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.2(K) Outlines the parking requirements of the proposed uses. Because requirements are based on number of bedrooms details on the exact number of bedrooms for each building and the locations shall be provided to determine if parking is in compliance. (This will require floor plans for each type of building) Once exact numbers are determined then bicycling and handicap parking requirements can also be determined if they are in compliance. Exact bicycle rack locations shall also be placed on the plans Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/03/2012: 3.2.4(A) Site lighting plan with details of light fixtures shall be provided for private lighting. Right now it appears that there is no private lighting. For security reasons it would seem that parking lots and walkways would need lighting. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington(alcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Show the existing ELCO water main in Conifer on the utility plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Due to the shallowness of the sanitary sewer, information is needed at preliminary to insure that the sanitary sewers for the development can be designed with acceptable grades and depths of cover. This information must also include storm drain elevations at crossings to see if conflicts exist. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Water main valving will be evaluated with next submittal. It appears that some valves can be eliminated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Plan and profile sheets(s) will be required for the 12-inch water main. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Show water and sewer services. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Indicate number of units in the multi -family buildings. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 O1/10/2012: Schedule a meeting for a general review of water and sanitary sewer locations and general routing. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416.2313, nbeals(&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(B) Permitted uses included Extra Occupancy Rental Houses, Two Family attached, Multi -Family, and Single family on lots less then 6000 sq ft. Note that if applicant is proposing single family it would need to be an addition of a permitted use because the proposed lot sizes are greater then 6000 sq ft. If single family is not intended then the plans need to state Extra Occupancy rental house with no reference to single family, be sure this is consistent throughout the application and plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: 4.19(D) Land Use standards is a minimum of 5 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of five stories. Current plans show only 2 story buildings there is a possible opportunity to increase building heights, which would also meet the North College Corridor Plan standards. Also, if proposing single family housing it is limited to 40% of the development. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, icounty(Mcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please move the tie information as shown on sheet 3. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/19/2012: Please correct the spelling of "Principal" in the legal description on sheet 1. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 2, 7 & 14. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 6, 7, 9 & 11. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01119/2012: There is missing text on sheet 13. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970.221.6197, emcardle(Mcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Routes 8 and 81 serve this area of the city along Blue Spruce Drive and Conifer Street. An improved north bound stop is located on the north side of Conifer, just west of Redwood Street, but a south bound stop needs to be integrated into this site. Applicant shall locate a 12' x 18' pad approximately 50'-80' west from the intersection of Redwood and Conifer Streets. Exact location should be coordinated with site plan to provide direct access into the site. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The intersection of Blue Spruce and Conifer may need alight with the addition of this development's traffic. Buses already experience difficulty heading east on Conifer Street. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The existing stop located at the food bank is in rough condition, if off site improvements are proposed in this area, Transfort requests providing an accessible pad for a bus shelter. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01110/2012: Sidewalks need to be shown on site plan to show how pedestrians access the site. As this is a student housing project, it is expected that the bus stop would be frequently used, please provide an enhanced access to the bus stop near the intersection of Redwood and Conifer. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, Icounty(afcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: The index on sheet 1 doesn't match the sheet numbering in the title block. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Sheets 9 & 11 are missing from the plan set. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 2. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please move all street names into the right of way on all sheets. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 2. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The boundary & legal description close. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please change the section location in the legal description to match the subtitle. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The bottom of the sheets are cut off. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please correct the spelling of "owner" on sheets 2 & 3. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There are line over text issues. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The record bearing for the south line of Section 1 is incorrect. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There are easements that need to be labelled. See redlines. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please change the section location in the legal description to match the subtitle. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: There is a street running through the middle of sheet 2 with no name. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01118/2012 01/18/2012: Please add "See Sheet 1" to Detail "A" on sheet 2. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416-2418, wlamargue(Mcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build storm lateral c6a from the outfall into the regional pond up to the west end of the Developers property. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: If the entire final cross-section of Vine Drive is required to be built with this development than storm line c2 needs to be built from the outfall into the regional pond up to the west property line. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/1012012: A pumping system is required to pump the site's drainage up to the Lake Canal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The Developer will be reimbursed for anything above there appropriated share of NECCO improvements when funds are available. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The construction of Vine Drive will alter existing drainage patterns from areas within Dry Creek basin northwest of the site. These flows need to be shown how they pass the site and Vine Drive. This will require a revision to the City's master plan model hydrology, which is the responsibility of the Developer. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/17/2012 01/17/2012: The hydraulic (including inlets, storm sewers, street capacity, etc.) and erosion control design for this Development will be reviewed during final compliance after a public hearing. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, icountv(@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are many line over text & text over text issues. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: No comments on the Street Cross Sections Plan. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23 & 25. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: There is a mislabelled matchline sheet number on sheet 9. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/19/2012 01/19/2012: Please remove all the duplicate street names on sheets 13 & 20-24. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416.2418, wiamargue(.fcgov.com Topic: Floodplain Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Floodplain comments 1. A portion of the project is in the FEMA-designated Dry Creek floodplain and floodway. 2. Please include the floodplain and floodway boundaries on the all the plan sheets for which the floodplain is mapped. 3. The plat shows the Redwood St. and New Vine Drive roads are shown to be constructed in the Dry Creek floodway. Because these roads will change the floodway boundary, a CLOMR and a LOMR will be required. In addition, this CLOMR/LOMR will need to reflect changes in the hydrology due to the construction of the pond. Please contact Marsha Hilmes-Robinson at mhilmesrobinson@fcgov.com or 970-224-6036 to arrange a meeting to discuss the CLOMR/LOMR process and the timing of improvements. 4. The floodway is not correctly identified on the plat. Please identify and distinguish between the Dry Creek floodway and floodplain. 5. Please include further discussion in the drainage report regarding the existing location of the floodway and floodplain and the proposed floodplain mapping changes. 6. Any vegetation placed in the floodway must be documented to be of a type and quantity such that upon maturity it will not increase the base flood elevations. 7. A floodplain use permit is required for any work in the floodplain or floodway. The permit fee is $325 which includes review of the hydraulic modeling for the CLOMR/LOMR. 8. Please see the 50% and 100% floodplain development review checklists for additional items needed on the plans and in the drainage report. All floodplain regulations can be found in Chapter 10 of City Code. 9. The floodplain use permit, and development review checklists are available on our website at: hftp://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/flooding/forms-documents Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The Development is within the Dry Creek Master Plan basin which contains the planned and designed future NECCO improvements. This development is required to construct several NECCO improvements on and around the site. A meeting to discuss these requirements is needed. A NECCO improvement plan is included for reference. These requirements are outlined in the following comments. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The regional NECCO pond needs to be excavated to final grade including low flow channel and outlet structure. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build the NECCO regional pond outfall storm sewer to the eastern edge of Redwood Street right-of-way. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: The project will be required to build storm line bl from the outfall into the regional pond up to the existing storm sewer in Conifer including the inlets on lateral b9 in Blue Spruce drive. This will allow for existing ditch south of Blue Spruce Drive to be eliminated. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.221.6635, rgonzales&poudre-fire.ong Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: WATER SUPPLY: The water supply for this project shall provide a hydrant no further than 400 feet to every structure, and on 800 foot centers thereafter. The required volume is 1500 gpm @ 20 psi. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Address numerals are required to be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted on a contrasting background. The numerals shall be posted on the front of the building. As is currently designed, only the perimeter buildings which front on a public street can meet this requirement. All other interior buildings appear to front on a walkway spine, which cannot be named. Therefore, the private drives, fire lanes, must be properly named and addressed for emergency services to locate. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: All proposed street names shall be submitted for review and approval by LETA prior to being put in service. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/0512012: Any hazardous materials shall be declared utilizing the HMIA, as described in LUC 3.4.5. This would include the use of pesticides, and pool chemistry. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: All multi -family units shall be fire sprinklered in accordance with the IRC. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wiamarguena.fcaov.com Topic: Floodplain Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224-6152, dmartine(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/1012012: Street trees along the dedicated City streets will need to be adjusted to provide required clearances to streetlights. Once Light & Power designs the streetlighting system a copy of the plan will be sent to the landscape architect. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Light & Power Engineering is unable to determine if adequate space is provided for electric utility facilities. In order to design the electric utility system, Light & Power Engineering will need to know the number of dwelling units in each building, and if electric space heating will be used or not. Please contact Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221.6635, rgonzales(toudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/05/2012 01/05/2012: REQUIRED ACCESS: Emergency Fire Access Easements (Fire Lanes) DEFINITION: An emergency access easement is an easement through or upon private property, properly platted and dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for the sole purpose of providing emergency access. It is intended to provide an area designed for the safe and effective deployment of emergency response services. Emergency services shall be allowed to drive, park and/or stage any emergency vehicle or equipment upon this easement at any time. The easement may be upon public streets (except arterial streets), parking lots, private streets and private drives; this easement shall not be upon any defined pedestrian walkway. It shall be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the easement unobstructed, including parked vehicles, and to maintain its visibility at all times for emergency access and firefighter safety. DESIGN: The easement is required to meet the design specifications outlined in the locally adopted fire code, as amended by the City of Fort Collins, and in the Land Use Code. It shall be designed to withstand the imposed weights of fire apparatus, 40-ton. It is required to have a minimum width of 20 feet, with a 25 foot inside turning radius and a 50 foot outside turning radius; and it shall have 14 foot of clear air space. No canopy trees under 14 feet shall overhang into the fire lane. If the fire lane(s) cannot be provided, all buildings beyond 150 feet from the public right of way are deemed out of access and required to be fire sprinklered. This distance is measured as the hose would lay, and not as the crow flies. Please verify this distance on the site plan or the overall utility plan. Fire access roads (fire lanes) shall be provided Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tbuchanan(a)fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: "Landscape tree lawns outside of the project perimeter shall be installed by the developer of Aspen Height and maintained by the City of Fort Collins". Contact Rodney Albers (224 6024) in Storm Water and Steve Lukowski (416 2063) in parks to discuss their requirements, and what additional statements they may require on the plan. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: "Street Trees on Local Roadways, internal to the development site can be a minimum of 1.5" caliper at the time of planting". Please explain why a smaller than the required 2.0 inch caliper tree would be specified here. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01118/2012: Street trees in site distance areas should have the first branch at 6 feet. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01118/2012: Please provide a statement as part of the tree mitigation information on why the existing trees on the site need to be removed. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Utility separations for trees: Six feet between water and sewer service lines. Ten feet between trees and water and sewer main lines. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/1812012: Planting beds along high use and visibility walls should be 5 feet wide. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Street trees should beat a 30-40 spacing. They appear to beat this spacing but there is a note that mentions 50 feet. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970.221.6206, iweinberg(ilfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 Staff has not identified any designated landmarks, nor any potentially eligible landmarks, that would be effected by this project. Comment Number: Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 Should any properties over 50 years of age be identified in the vicinity of the project, they will need to be evaluated under 14-72 of the Municipal Code and Land Use code Section 3.4.7. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224.6152, dmartinena.fcgov.com Topic: General Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex(a fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/11/2012 01/11/2012: Staff concurs with the ECS that a burrowing owl survey will need to be conducted, prior to construction, to determine if the owls are present on the site. Prior to releasing the Development Construction Permit, staff will need a letter of clearance from the USFWS confirming there are no known nesting sites on the property. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221.6361, tbuchanan(a)fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 O1/18/2012: Note 6 on sheet 1 should be changed to the code requirement for soil improvement. • The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. Comment Number: 2 Add these notes to address the tree permit requirment: Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 • A permit must be obtained from the City Forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. • The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Explore the addition of ornamental trees in the front lawn or bed space of units along public streets. These lawn areas between the building and sidewalk to be reviewed for full tree stocking. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Add this note: Tree removal shall be by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist where required by code. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex(a)fc4ov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: It sounds like the mitigation and monitoring plan will be received upon the next submittal. The monitoring plan should include the n-s spine in the center of the project, which is being designed as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone. Also note that the City and ACOE have generally similar requirements, but the mitigation plan may need to address specific City concerns, especially if the wetlands are deemed to be non -jurisdictional. One of the critical components for City staff will be whether the proposed mitigation location has sufficient hydrology to support a wetland. Also, as per Section 3.4.1(0) of the Land Use Code, a copy of the ACOE mitigation permit will be required to be submitted to the City for proof of compliance. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Noxious weeds - the Development Agreement and Mitigation Plan should include a discussion on how the site will address noxious weeds, e.g., the field bindweed and Canada thistle found on the site. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: ECS Comments - how does the riparian forest that runs along the southern boundary of the property align with the proposed plan? It appears this forest is within the Vine Drive ROW. How will the loss of this forest be mitigated through the site plan? Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: As this project proposed to remove a raptor foraging area and a prairie dog colony over 50 acres, at least a three -pronged approach should be taken to mitigate the loss of these resources. 1. The applicant should verify that relocation of the prairie dogs is not an option. If it is not an option, then efforts to trap and donate the prairie dogs to the ferret or raptor center should be discussed. 2. The regional detention pond on the site should be designed to maximize the urban habitat opportunities, e.g., every effort should be made to design and construct the regional detention basin as a native habitat, including native grass and forb species in the design. The proposed seed mix in the landscape plan is an excellent start toward achieving this but do we think the base of the detention pond will be dry or wet? If the pond will be wet, then a wetland seed mix should be considered for the site (including the wetland mitigation area). In addition, shrubs and trees surrounding the pond should be installed to enhance the vegetation diversity (both structurally and species -specific). 3. In addition, because there will be a loss of raptor habitat, staff is exploring mechanisms to create additional or enhance existing prairie habitat (that could serve raptors upon restoration) in other areas across the City (mitigating for the loss of this habitat), e.g., at McKee Farm in southeast Fort Collins. Let's plan a separate meeting to discuss these comments in more detail. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: A note on all of the plans saying the following, "See Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses within the Natural Habitats Buffer Zone" may need to be added in future reviews, depending on how the mitigation areas are designed. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221-6573, slangenbemercafcgov.com Topic: Offske Work Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: At this time I do not have enough information to know if any off -site easements will be necessary for the site or road construction. As the review progresses and additional grading and design information is provided this can be determined. Letters of intent from any property owners from which easements are needed are to be provided prior to being able to schedule this project for hearing. A letter of intent is a letter from the property owner identifying its intent to grant the easement(s) necessary to accomplish the proposed design. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 37 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: We have plat language that was updated last May. I can email it to you if you would like me to. Just let me know what your email is. Mine: slangenberger@fcgov.com Comment Number: 38 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to clearly identify who is to own and maintain all of the lots. Comment Number: 39 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 40 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As I understand it PFA is going to require that the private drives be named, as it is necessary for the units to be addressed. Once named the private drive names need to be placed on the plat and clearly identified that they are private drives. Comment Number: 41 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The areas that are to be named private drives also need to be general access easements. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 46 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970.224.6143, lex(&fcaov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 Comment Originated: 01/10/2012 01/10/2012: Wetland mitigation locations and specifications need to be on the site, landscape and utility plans. In this submittal, I only saw them on the Utility Plans. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/1012012 01110/2012: Environmental planner signatures will need to be added to the Utility Plans. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenberger(.fcgov,com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Parking setbacks to standards are not being met. In accordance with the standards Figure 19-6 the distance from the flowline to the edge of the first parking stall for the large lots is to be 50 feet and 40 feet for the small parking lots. We can certainly look at a variance request for this. I have not discussed this with any other the other staff that would also review this variance, so I don't know if a variance to the extent the plans are currently designed to would be accepted. (best to be addressed before hearing as it could impact the parking numbers) Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: 1 have noted on the plans some additional details that will eventually need to be provided. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/2012012: The reimbursement for the row along Vine Dr that is being dedicated above that required for a local street connection will be addressed in the Development Agreement. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Upon construction of Redwood the developer can file a repay for the portion of the east side of the road that this development constructs adjacent to undeveloped property. Comment Number: 47 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The driveway widths for the private drives have been shown so far only on the site plans. In accordance with Section 9.3.2(a) of the LUCASS the driveways that serve parking areas for more than 3 units need to have an entry width of 28 feet. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 42 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to add sight distance easements and the language that defines them. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 43 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to show the street trees and parkway landscaping along lot 5 that will need to be installed with this project. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 44 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Need to show the proposed Vine Drive median landscaping. (plans need to identify that median landscaping will be provided with this project. I would doubt that we will be able to have a final agreed upon landscape plan for the median before hearing) Comment Number: 45 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Trees within the row and sight distance easements need to be limbed up to 6 feet from grade. The plans indicated that it was 5 feet. Topic: Offsite Work Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenberger(fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The naming of New Vine will need to be addressed with this project as we can not have two streets with the name of Vine. Per preliminary discussions with the transportation staff it was felt that a different name should be assigned to the New Vine alignment. Pinon is a possibility since this is the name of the street this one will align with across College Ave. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The soils report indicates that perched water conditions maybe found on this site. If this occurs whether before construction or during construction this site will need to be designed or redesigned to include an underdrain system under the public streets. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/2012012 01/20/2012: A pedestrian connection (sidewalk) from this site along Conifer will need to be constructed to provide a link from this site to the College Avenue corridor. This off -site sidewalk can be a temporary asphalt pedestrian connection or a concrete sidewalk in the ultimate location along this roadway. The City Capital project for North College Ave is underway and upon completion of that College Ave will have bike lanes and sidewalk along both sides of it from Conifer south. This site needs to provide a connection to that system. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: As we continue with rounds of review I will look into placement of manholes and make sure they are designed so they are not within the wheel path of the travel lance or within a bike lane. 12.2.3.13 LCUASS Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: This is a project that is going to take a lot of meetings and discussion to make sure that everything is designed as needed and comes together as a good final plan. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: It appears that sight distance easements will need to be provided at the Conifer/ Redwood intersection, the Lupine/Redwood intersection, along Lupine at the curves, and possibly along Blue Spruce at the curves. These have not yet been shown and need to be calculated and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The utility plan check sheet that was submitted was returned — please note comments on this and items that are incomplete. I tried to repeat most of these in my comments, but this maybe helpful. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Two City of Fort Collins benchmarks need to be provided on the plans. Currently one is provided. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenberger(aUcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Blue Spruce: The Curves on Blue Spruce. I don't believe that these meet the minimum centerline arc length requirement, Section 7.4.1.A.4. But do believe this solution with an adequate tangent is better than meeting this requirement and having a portion of the road shift over. Please put together a variance request for this. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Lupine. Need to provide a 500 foot off -site design for this street. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Lupine. Horizontal curves are not to be started or ended close to the top of a crest curve or the bottom of a sag curve. Section 7.4.A.5 LCUASS. This is currently occurring in two locations along Lupine. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: There are several vertical curves in which the minimum curve length is not being provided. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18 Comment Number: 33 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Curve information is needed on these plans. Comment Number: 34 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profiel Sheets: Need to label the curb return radii for all street intersections. Comment Number: 35 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Blue Spruce. Per the information on the plat the minimum tangent length between curves is not being. met. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 36 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Plan and Profile Sheets: Redwood. Where you are showing tying into the existing roadway you are exceeding the minimum grade break allowed. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Based on the site plan and plat that was submitted for this site the Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) was overpaid by $15.62. A refund can be provided or a credit of this amount can be applied to the future FDP application or the additional fees if a clubhouse is added to the plans. The submitted plans do not include a clubhouse, but the documents indicate that one is to be constructed with the project. At such time as a clubhouse is added to the project for approval additional TDRF will be assessed. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: The project summary indicated that a modification of standards request was submitted regarding a setback from New Vine Drive. I did not receive this documentation. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenberger(a fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/2012012: Grading Plans: What grading is needed, if any, in Blondel to achieve the minimum cover over the waterline you are showing to be installed? Comment Number: 22 1 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Driveways: All driveways into the parking lots and private drives need to be designed and shown as type I driveways. Based on the total trip generation and the number of parking spaces on site none of the driveways will have enough traffic to be considered high volume drives. They are currently being shown as if they were street intersections. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Driveways and Grading: Per LCUASS no storm flows are to flow over the sidewalk and out the driveway. Understanding that no flow is not always achievable, the policy is that a maximum of 750 square feet of area is allowed to flow out a driveway. You have driveways/ parking areas that exceed that amount. For those areas you can take the drainage into a pan and out through a sidewalk culvert into the street. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: As identified in the conceptual comments and shown by these plans additional row is needed along Conifer and Redwood to accommodate the standard parkway and sidewalk section, This additional row and the standard 9 foot utility easements behind the row need to be dedicated on the plat and shown on the plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: Redwood and Conifer Streets are considered Collector streets on the MSP. As such upon construction of improvements along these roads the developer will be eligible for street oversizing reimbursement for the oversized portion of the roadways that are constructed by this development. Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Conifer and Redwood: I have circle and noted several areas on the plans where it looks like there might be a conflict between the sidewalks and handicap ramps and other items along the roadways. Some are utilities and others I am not quite sure what they are. We will need to look at these areas in more detail and determine how things can work and what utilities may need to be relocated. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Blue Spruce:Each end of Blue Spruce as it ties into Conifer and New Vine needs to be widened out to a 36 foot cross section for a distance. This will help to accommodate the traffic movements at these intersections. Thirty six feet will allow room for 3 travel lanes that will accommodate someone waiting to turn left, someone turning right and allow room for a vehicle to turn into the site. I can provide some example of this from other plans. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221.6343, tshepard(@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: Please be thinking about putting together a list of possible names for the drive aisles needing to be named for addressing purposes as per Poudre Fire Authority. These names will then be run through our screening system in conjunction with the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority to check for duplicates, sound-alikes or difficult to pronounce names. Names do not need to be finalized at the P.D.P. stage. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221-6573, , slangenberger(a)fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine: The plans appear to show that only the north half of New Vine will be constructed with this project. The full section of New Vine (4 lane arterial section) will need to be built along the frontage of this property. This site has responsibility to build the local street frontage along the full north frontage from Redwood to the west property line of Lot 3 and the local street frontage along the south frontage from Redwood to the west property line along Lot 5. From the west edge of Tract 5 to the western property line Lot 3 the project is eligible for reimbursement from Old Town North. The center portion of the street (the oversized portion) will be reimbursed through Street Oversizing Fund participation. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine: A full design for Vine Drive will be needed. As you work on this please remember that the median needs to be designed to include a subdrain, water tap, and the landscaping for the median needs to be planned out and designed. The median will also need to be design to meet horizontal and vertical design standards. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: New Vine:As we get to designing the Redwood/ New Vine intersection this will need to be looked at in a bit more detail. Since the row for New Vine does not exist yet to the east the full intersection with curb returns can not be constructed at this time. We will want to make sure that what is built can be easily tied into with the future extension. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: I can not tell if the grade lines tie into existing grades within the property lines and right-of-way lines at this time. Additional clarification is needed to show how all the grading work is proposed to tie into existing. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: No proposed grade lines are shown within Vine and Redwood. This is needed to show how the grading work for these streets will work and to determine what if any off -site easements will be needed for the work. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/20/2012 01/20/2012: Grading Plans: Need to show how you plan to end the west end of Vine and Lupine. And how the grades will tie into existing grades. Also need to show Type III barricades being installed in these two locations. (needs to be addressed before hearing) Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221-6343, tshepard(Dfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Asper the Zoning comment, there should be two additinoal walkways traversing the north/south drainage channel in addition to the public sidewalk on Lupine. At the southern end of the drainage channel, this walkway/bridge can be combined with the walkway indicated at the south edge of the buildings as there is no need to duplicate. Again, be sure that ramps are added where this walkway intersects with the drive aisles. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Along public streets, street trees must be two inches in caliper, not 1 1/2 inch. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: For the Extra Occupancy Rental Houses (including the Two Family Dwellings where there are more than three bedrooms i.e. Aspen, Keystone, Frisco and Telluride) be sure to use 3.2.2(K)(1)(j) in caluclating the minimum parking required. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01 /2212012 01/22/2012: Per 3.6.5, and in conjunction with the comments from Transfort, please indicate the location of the bus stop(s) and show how these bus stops are connected to the project with logically located walkways. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: On site plan sheet 11 of 14, at the south end of the clubhouse/amenity area, please indicate that this is the clubhouse area. Are there any plans for how the clubhouse relates to Lupine Drive? Will there be a mail kiosk in this area? Is there sufficient area for a one or two -car pull-in/pull-out for dropping off rent checks or any other such frequent activity? These seems like a logical location for how the clubhouse or leasing office relates to the community at -large. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: There has been some discussion regarding the continuation of the "trail" along Redwood. Please coordinate with Engineering as to the location and specifications for this trail and indicate on the appropriate site plan sheets. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: On landscape sheet 3 of 11, there is a detail for the typical treatment for Extra Occupancy Rental Houses and Two Family Dwellings. Is a similar detail needed for the Multi -Family units? Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01122/2012: Be sure to add ramps wherever a private walkway intersects with a parking lot drive aisle. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/22/2012 01/22/2012: As a minor point, could you please put the name Vine in quotations and indicate that the use of the name is simply as an interim placeholder until such time as City Council designates a new name. Fort Collins January 23, 2012 Deanne Frederickson The Frederickson Group, LLC 7711 Windsong Rd Windsor. CO 80550 RE: Aspen Heights Student Housing, PDP110018, Round Number 1 Community Development and Neighborhood services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgo v. com/developmentreview 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, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970.221.6343, tsheaard(Dfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: The site, landscape and architectural elevations for the clubhouse, pool, sport court, etc. will be needed at the time of submittal for Final Plan, not Building Permit as indicated in the note. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: Please provide a symbol or label that indicates the front of the dwellings face either a public street or a major walkway spine. The plans should be clear that the fronts do not face the parking lots. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: We will need to have a discussion with our Environmental Planner and Stormwater as to the extent of landscaping the City's detention pond in and in conjunction with the prairie dog removal mitigation plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/18/2012 01/18/2012: A walkway is needed along the private drive along the north side of the clubhouse area. This walkway must be a minimum of six feet in width since the parking stalls are only 17 feet in length. Be sure to add ramps where this walkway interesects with the parking lot drive.