Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREMINGTON ROW (ANNEX) - PDP - PDP110017 - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbealsCDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: LUC 4.9(D)(6)(d) The required side setbacks is an additional 1 foot for every additional 2 foot or fraction thereof of wall. On the Figure 1 of the modification request to this section the North elevation drawing states the following: Wall Plane A3 required setback = 12' 3" should be 13' Wall Plane A2 setback required = 10' 4.5" should be 11' Wall Plane Al setback required = 57 should be 6' South Elevation drawing states the following: Wall Plane C3 setback required=147.5" should be 15' Wall Plane C2 setback required = 11'4.5" should be 12' Wall Plane C1 setback required = 77.5" should be 8' Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: LUC 3.2.2(J) On the site plan vehicle stall spaces labeled # 19, 20, 21 are required a 5ft landscape setback from the west property line, The proposed 2 foot setback does not comply. LUC 3.2.2(L) The drive aisle width for one-way traffic when using overhang for the standard stall is 22'. The proposed 20' drive aisle width does not comply. Please label the stall width on the site plan. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: Please label the trash/recycling enclosure dimensions. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: On the site plan along the North property there is label that states a 3' side yard setback, what is this in reference to? • .Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington(a)fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Show all utilities (gas, electric, cable, telephone, etc.) in the alley and the Remington Street R.O.W. so contractor is aware of the potential conflicts Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Show all utilities (gas, electric, cable, telephone, etc.) in the alley and the Remington Street R.O.W. so contractor is aware of the potential conflicts Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Move the water meter for 711 Remington to a meter pit out front in a location similar to 7095 and 715. Remove the existing curb stop and install a new curb stop adjacent to the meter pit. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Move the water meter for 711 Remington to a meter pit out front in a location similar to 7095 and 715. Remove the existing curb stop and install a new curb stop adjacent to the meter pit. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: List the number of units in each building on the site plan. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: List the number of units in each building on the site plan. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970.416.2313, nbeals(&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/28/2012: See note #22 Below 12/27/2011: 4.9(D)(6)(d) 5ft side setback required if wall height is 18ft. If greater then 18ft there is an additional foot setback for every 2ft or fraction thereof in height. Wall heights on both sides exceed 18ft. The building wall height is approximately 33ft on each side both the north and south therefore the building should be setback 13ft from each side property line. The side setback is based on the vertical wall height. An eave does not serve to reduce the height of the wall. The setback modification request is based on eave height, rather than the wall height, and therefore the request is not accurate. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 12/27/2011 12/28/2012: See note # 23 below 12/27/2011: 3.2.2(L)(1) Table A Two-way drive aisle width is 24ft, One-way drive aisle width is 20ft required. The drive aisles are 20ft in width which is inadequate for the two-way. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, *county fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/08/2013: There are still minor issues. 01/03/2012: The are minor line over text issues. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/08/2013: Please add a note stating "Easements shown hereon are being dedicated with this plat, unless otherwise noted.". 01/03/2012: Is the 15' drainage easement existing or to be dedicated? Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Please change "men" to "persons" in the Statement Of Ownership And Subdivision. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01108/2013: Is there a newer or updated title work for this survey? Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 01/0812013 01108/2013: Please change the date shown in the upper right corner of the sheet. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/0812013: Please change the Surveyor representing King Surveyors. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Please remove the dashes from the sheet index & sheets PDP-1 & PDP-2. All sheet numbering should be consistent. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 01/0812013 01/08/2013: Please correct the sheet names in the sheet index. Please remove the Subdivision Plat & Utility Plans from the index. Comment Number: 24 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Please correct the north arrow & text at the bottom left of sheet PDP-1. Comment Number: 25 Comment Originated: 01/0812013 01/0812013: If the dashed lines on sheets PDP-1 & PDP-2 are easement lines, please correct them. They do not match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. Comment Number: 26 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/0812013: Add "Thirteen" to the legal description, to match the Subdivision Plat. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970.221.6820, wstanford[rDfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Site has been redesigned to a lower number of units. No issues with the changes or the reduced expected traffic volumes. TIS for the previously higher density proposal is acceptable for this redesign. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcounty(a.fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 27 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Please remove the dashes from sheets PDP-3 & PDP-4. All sheet numbering should be consistent. Comment Number: 28 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet PDP-3 & PDP-4. Please mask all text in the hatching on sheet PDP-4. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/08/2013: This has not been corrected. This should match the Subdivision Plat, and include a bearing. 01/03/2012: Please correct the Basis of Bearings on sheets 1 & 2. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/08/2013: This has not been corrected. 01/03/2012: Please correct the naming conflict on sheets 1 & 5. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/08/2013: There are still line over text issues on sheets EX01, GR01 & RD01. 01/03/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets 6 & 7. Comment Number: 31 Comment Originated: 01/09/2013 01/0912013: The sub -title on sheet CV01 should match the Subdivision Plat. Comment Number: 32 Comment Originated: 01/09/2013 01/09/2013: The 15' drainage easement being dedicated by the Subdivision Plat is not shown on sheets UT01 & GR01. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 29 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: If the dashed lines on sheet L1 & L2 are easement lines, please correct them. They do not match what is shown on the Subdivision Plat. Comment Number: 30 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Please move "Remington Street on sheet L1. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01/08/2013: The details on sheet PM2 still have small text and are pixelated. 01/03/2012: The text in the details is a little small & pixelated. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/03/2012 01108/2013: The boundary & leagl description close. 01103/2012: The boundary & legal close. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Don Kapperman, , Topic: Easements Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/29/2011 12/29/2011: Comcast will require a 6' utility easement in alley. Additionally, 5' easement is needed to feed 121 East Laurel Street and any relocation is at owners expense. Department: PFA' Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970.416.2869, 0lynxwiler(o)poudre-fire.orp Topic: General Comment Number: 07 Comment Originated: 01/10/2013 01/10/2013: A NFPS 13R fire sprinkler system shall be provided for all three of the proposed buildings. Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.416-2864, rJc onzalesna.poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/28/2011 12/28/2011: The fire department connection shall be on the building and on the street side of the building. All buildings served by a fire sprinkler systems shall have a fire department connection. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamargue(&fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: The freeboard for the ponds should be measured from the top of the water surface elevation in the spill condition. This may be close to the F.F. elevation of the buildings. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: Water quality treatment needs to be per the Urban Drainage Manual. The volume needs to be over a landscaped area and not over pavement. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/08/2013 01/08/2013: There are some discrepancies in the report regarding the detention volume being provided and what is required. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/11/2013 01/1112013: A drainage easement is required for the limits of the detention and water quality areas. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221.6588, icountv(rDfcaov.com Topic: Building Elevations Department: Internal Services Contact: Russ Hovland, , Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/21/2011 12/31/2012: Building code still requires a sprinkler. Bedroom Egress windows required below 4th floor regardless of fire -sprinkler. 12/21/2011: Building code will require a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: New buildings less than 20 feet from another building must provide fire -rated exterior walls/openings. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: IBC Chapter 11 and State Statute CRS 9-5 requires the project to provide accessible units Comment Number: 8 12/3112012: New Green Code Requires: Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 -Upgraded insulation for buildings using electric heat or cooling: Low -flow watersense plumbing fixtures (toilet, faucets, shower heads) are required - Low VOC interior finishes. Please see green code compliance guide for additional requirements. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224.6152, dmartineofcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 12/28/2012: Comment Originated: 12/20/2011 12/20/2011: There is a major underground electric 13,800 volt substation tie circuit along the westerly side of Remington St. This is a multi -conduit system with multiple high voltage cables encased in a 1000 psi concrete mix. It is believed that this line is under the existing sidewalk. This system cannot self-support a trench under it of over 4 ft. wide. This line needs to be field located by calling the One Call Locating system (811). The developer is also encouraged to 'pot hole' both the top and bottom of this line to be sure the concrete curb channel can be installed over the electric, and the water/fire linescan be installed under it. Relocation of this power line (vertically or horizontally) will not be practical. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 12/28/2012 12/28/2012: In an email, the Engineer on the project (Sam Eliason) indicates that the larger buildings will be 5 apartments each, with the center building remaining a single family. With this arrangement, it is unlikely that an elevator, or fire pump, and in turn 3 phase power will be required. It is assumed that no form of electric space heating will be used. With the fewer number of apartments, the electric development charges will also be less than previously estimated. Department: Outside Agencies Contact: Don Kapperman, , Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tbuchanan(rDfcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/06/2012 01/06/2012: Review the positon of the south most street tree near the electical vault with Light and Power Departments standards. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 01/06/2012 01/0612012: The tree mitigation note should be revised by deleting the statement "at locations provided by the City Forester". The applicant should identify locations for off site mitigation trees and a proposed process for getting these trees planted. Some city ROW sites may be available and can be reviewed with the City Forester. Locations at Colorado State university can be explored with the Campus Landscape Architect. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 01/06/2012 01106/2012:Forestry has further reviewed the use of ornamental Pears as street trees to maximize on site tree mitigation. To meet the code requirement to use canopy shade trees we explored possible canopy street trees that could be used at close spacing similar to the pears. Glenleven Linden is a narrow crown tree that can be planted at 20 feet spacing. The applicant should use Glenleven Linden or another appropriate canopy tree in place of the pears where possible to maximize on site mitigation by using a canopy street tree. Lindens would need to be planted at a minimum of around 20 foot spacing. There appears to be space for 3 lindens where the 4 pears are now used in the center of the parkway. There appears to be a possible location for a Linden at the north end and south end of the parkway where pears are shown. Contact the City Forester to review or meet on site to discuss suggested locations. Pictures and locations of Glenleven Linden are available. Comment Number: 8 01/09/2013: Comment Originated: 01/09/2013 Different than previously communicated to the applicant the two existing Siberian Elms along Remington are to be retained for now. The City Forestry Division will manage these two trees under our street tree management program to provide pruning and replacement as needed within the schedule of work activities. This will result in the need to provide two more mitigation trees on -site. Comment Number: 9 01/09/2013: Please provide shrubs and locations in planting beds. Comment Number: 10 01/09/2013: Existing trees 24, 25, 26 may be off site our boundary trees. Department: Internal Services Contact: Russ Hovland, , Topic: General Comment Originated: 01/09/2013 Comment Originated: 01/09/2013 Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: MarcVirata, 970-221.6567, mvirata(a7fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/09/2013: Rob Mosbey, Engineering Inspection Manager (221-6659) can be contacted to coordinate a walk through with an inspector of existing infrastructure that may need to be replaced. 01/04/2012: As per General Note #42 of the Construction Plan set, the applicant is required to replace any existing (or damaged during construction) curb, gutter and sidewalk. Some of the existing sidewalk along Remington Street appears to be questionable in its existing condition. It may be beneficial to conduct a walk-through of the existing infrastructure to ascertain what existing components might be identified for needing replacement. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/09/2013: I'm understanding that there may be a concern with the change now to Remington Annex due to the title implying it's an annexation. It appears that the drawings should all have Subdivision added back on to the title, in order to reduce any confusion. 01/04/2012: The plat's title of "Remington Annex Subdivision" differs from the the other drawings as "Remington Annex" please either remove "Subdivision" from the plat title, or add "Subdivision" to the other documents. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970.221.6361, tbuchanan(&fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/06/2012 01/06/2012:: The large spruce tree shown to be retained on the NE part of the site is very close to the walls of the building. Construction this close to the tree could cause significant damage to the roots and crown. From the landscape plan it appears the wall is 7 feet from the outer bark of the tree. The applicant should contact the City Forester for an on site meeting to review and discuss construction impact to the tree and design options. Additional tree protection notes may be required that would be developed after the on site meeting. Comment Number: 2 • Comment Originated: 01/06/2012 01/06/2012: Add this landscape note. "Tree removal shall be performed by a Fort Collins Licensed arborist as required by code". Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/06/2012 01/06/2012: These are the mitigation numbers for the following existing trees. Number16-1 Number 19-1 Number 23-1 Number 24-3 Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 01/06/2012 01/06/2012: Replace landscape note number 11 with the current code requirement for soil improvement. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970.221.6567, mviratana.fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/09/2013: Understanding that this may still be an open ended item. If communication has not been made with Century Link, I can look to contact them as well. 01/04/2012: Per the requirements in Section 3.3.2(D)(7), please ensure to coordinate the undergrounding of the existing QwestlCentury Link overhead line with the development. Absent of this, the developer must provide conduit to provide for the future undergrounding of the Qwest/Century Link overhead line. Verification on whether undergrounding is to occur with the project, or conduit is provided needs to occur prior to a hearing. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/11/2013: This comment is considered resolved, the City won't pursue an access easement with the reduction in the number of units and the lack of a parking garage. This was confirmed with input from Traffic Operations. 01/09/2013: With the reduced number of units and a parking garage no longer being part of the plan, there may no longer be a need to require this. I'm in the process of following -up with Traffic Operations for their thoughts and potential concurrence. 01/05/2012: It was discussed among City staff from a transportation perspective that with the present design of the parking garage access lining up with the driveway access for Collegio off of College Avenue, that there is a likelihood of residents of Remington Annex utilizing the driveway off of College Avenue for access. As a result of this, the City is requiring that Remmington Annex obtain a public access easement (dedicated to the City) for the establishment of a public access easement right from the College Avenue right-of-way, underneath the Collegio building out to the alley. This easement would appear to need to define the airspace between the building and drive aisle. A letter of intent from the property owner of Collegio indicating they would not object to the granting of such an easement would need to be provided prior to a hearing for the overall project. The actual easement would be required prior to final plan approval of the project, in a City acceptable format with a $250 Transportation Development Review Fee and the recording fee amount required by the County (payable to the County) in order to record it. [Original Comment:] 01/04/2012: With the entrance to the parking garage for the development being located directly across the driveway for Collegio that provides direct access to College Avenue, how does the applicantlowner intend to address an potential likelihood of residents of the Remington Annex using the access off for Collegio off of College Avenue? With this movement be somehow actively discouraged or encouraged in some manner? Is there intended to be a linkage between the two projects as a result, through covenants, cross -access agreements/easements, etc.? City Transportation Staff is intending to meet Thursday morning to discuss this with the input provided from the applicantlowner at the Wednesday review meeting and may have concerns to then present afterwards as a result. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970.221.6567, mvirata fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/09/2013: With the understanding that the parking garage is no longer part of the project, might there be basements proposed with the project that would bring up the potential of a perimeter drain system around the foundation? 01/04/2012: Please provide information regarding what dewatering measures, if any, are intended for the project for the below ground structure. If a perimeter drain system around the foundation is proposed, indicate the location on the construction drawings and ensure that such a system is located outside of right-of-way and any utility easement. How would such a system release water, would there be eventual backlighting of flows out to the street either from a sump pump/pit or direct discharge? Show the location of any sump pit on the construction drawings to ascertain how and where any discharging of flows to the surface would drain. Ideally, flows would pass through the water quality/quantity ponds rather than directly discharge. Comment Number: 10 01/09/2013: Carried over for reference. Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/04/2012: At time of a final plan submittal, please ensure that construction details, including a joint pattern detail for the alley is provided in the construction plan set. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/09/2013: The note still needs to reflect that an approved pavement design report shall be used to specify the pavement design for the alley. 01/04/2012: Note 2 on sheet RD01 of the construction drawing set needs to state that final design for the alley pavement section shall be approved with the pavement design report required for the project (pavement design is not specified with the geotechnical report.) Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 01/09/2013 01/09/2013: Please identify patching for the utility work on Remington Street and add the following note: "Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs to be in accordance with City street repair standards." Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 01/04/2012 01/09/2013: Not anticipating any concerns with the addressing of this comment. The response however indicated that the variance has been revised to reflect subsequent discussions with utilities — was an updated variance request submitted? I did not see this with the submittal. 0110412012: The engineering variance request for the elimination of the utility easement (8') along the alley and utility easement (16) along Remington Street is considered pending thus far. The utility coordination meeting for the project held just prior to the PDP submittal seemed to indicate that City utilities (water/sewer, stormwater, light and power) did not appear to have an objection to the utility easement elimination for both the alley and Remington Street. However with external utility providers (Comcast/Xfinity, Qwest/Century Link, and Xcel) not present, final determination hasn't been verified at this time. Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970.416.2283, clevingston fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: An irrigation plan is required prior to recording final plans (Section 3.2.2(M)(3)). Please contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com if there are any specific technical questions. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12/22/2011: The detail for the fixtures on the lighting plan is illegible, please correct the pixilation. Additionally, what type of finish do these fixtures have. Per LUC 3.2.4(D)(4) they must be anodized or coated to minimize glare. Please add a note to the lighting plan stating this. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12/2212011: Please add a note to the lighting plan saying "light fixtures shall be attached to poles and buildings by use of nonadjustable angle brackets or other mounting hardware." This requirement is per LUC 3.2.4(D)(3). Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/3112012: Does the lighting plan account for a light loss factor of 1.0? Additionally, are there existing street lights that need to be factored in? Please call out existing street lights on photometric plan. Topic: Modification of Standard Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: Staff is concerned about the modification as it relates to the property to the south 719 Remington. Has the applicant discussed this with the property owner to the south? Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/22/2011 12/31/2012: At time of final, please provide bike rack detail. 12/22/2011: Please call out on your site plan the required bike parking per LUC 3.2.2(C)(4). The bicycle parking should be conveniently located near building entrances and need to be at least two (2) feet in width and five and one-half (5'/z) feet in length, with additional back -out or maneuvering space of at least five (5) feet. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: MarcVirata, 970.221.6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings C1ty of Fort Collin_ s L January 13, 2013 Jeff Hansen Vaught Frye Larson Architects 401 Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Remington Annex, PDP110017, Round Number 2 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax tcgov. 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, Courtney Levingston, at 970-416-2283 or clevingsfon@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Courtney Levingston, 970.416.2283, clevinciston(a.fcaov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: Please have a note on the plans (PDP-2) stating that conduit, vents, meters and other equiptment attached to the buildingwill be painted to match. Topic: General Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: Please provide a shading exhibit as outlined in Section 3.2.3(D) with the resubmittal. This should show the shadow cast from a 25 foot wall on November 21 st, December 21 and Feb 21st at 9 am and 3 pm and then showing the shadow cast on to the adjacent properties by the proposed project as to verify compliance. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 12/31/2012 12/31/2012: How many square feet is the parking area (not including sidewalks, ect) and how many square feet are the landscape islands. The purple highlighted area on redlines delineate what can be counted towards interior parking lot landscaping. Please provide this information on the plans when resubmitting in reference to the 6% interior parking lot landscaping requirement in 3.2.1 (E)(5).