Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAM'S CROSSING K2 APARTMENTS - BDR - BDR110004 - CORRESPONDENCE - (8)11/29/2011: City Code requires that each building have separate water and sewer services. Development fees and water rights are based upon the number of living units and the lot area; therefore. there is no savings in connecting both buildings to the same water service. Response: A new tap has been added next to the hydrant. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Revise the fittings and notes at the north end of the water main extension as shown on the redlined utility plans. Response: Revised. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Provide an easement (20 foot minimum width) for the water main and fire hydrant. Response: A utility. drainage and access easement covers the entire drive area and the waterline. 11/29/2011: afire lane is required. provide fire lane plan for approval. Response: Fire lane in an easement has been provided per meetings with Ron. Comment Number: 5 11/29/2011: Department: Stormwater Engineering Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970.416.2418, wlamarque(Mcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: The existing outfall for this site is undesirable. Although this is an existing condition, the City encourages the applicant to look for opportunities to improve the current outfall situation with CSU to the north and east. Response: After conversations with CSU there is no outfall adjacent to the site other than the existing location. All of the CSU storm sewer and ponds near the site are at capacity. After a discussion with Wes, this is acceptable to the City. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: The City would like to have a meeting to discuss the best water quality mitigation techniques available for this site that will improve water quality while not becoming a maintenance problem. We also have some design suggestions for a sand filter that might help when no outfall or underdrain exist. Response: The sand filter has been revised per the meeting with the City. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11129/2011: Please add all drainage details including concrete channel and permanent BMPs. Response: Concrete channel is the only detail that was missing and has been added. A section of the sand filter is shown on the grading plan. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Please discuss in the text of the drainage letter the outfall for the site. Please mention how the flows get to the nearest right-of-way. Response: Revised. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970.221.6854, rbuffington(a7fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 Response: $750 TDRF was included for the 3 proposed legals at the initial submittal. We are combining the utility, drainage and emergency access easement in the site, so we have 3 rather than 4. The legals are included in this submittal for review, then we can add the dedication documents and record. Topic: landscape Plans Comment Number: 5 11/29/2011: The existing sign is still being shown. Response: The existing sign has been removed. The following note needs to be added to the landscape plan: Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 Landscaping within the row is restricted to plants that do not exceed 24 inches in height measured from the street flowline (trees excepted). If the landscaping within the row exceeds this height or creates a sight distance concern the property owner shall be required to trim the landscape material. Response: Note has been added. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: The existing sign is still being shown in the sidewalk. Response: The existing sign has been removed. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970.221-6635, rcionzalesig5poudre•fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11129/2011 11129/2011: Address numerals required to be visible from the street the property fronts on Response: Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 11/29/2011: the building is required to be fire sprinklered Response: Fire line is provided. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: a fire hydrant is required to be within 300 feet of the building, measured as the hose would lay, not as the crow flies. Response: Fire hydrant has been placed per meetings with Ron. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: Per driveway type II there are no truncated domes to be located at the sidewalk crossing of the driveway. Response: The domes have been removed. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: 1 do not have a response to the two variance requests. I plan on discussing this with staff this week and will get back to folks once I have answers. Response: Both were approved — thank you. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11/29/2011: The boulders that are located on the West side of the driveway. Any way that these can be setback from the sidewalk? Per the standards 2 feet of separation from the sidewalk edge to the edge of the feature is required. Figure 16-1, note 1. 1 do not get this from looking at the plans, but from the street view it looks as if these boulders maybe intended to provide an edge for the raised area where the tree is. this is so additional information needs to be provided on the plans as to how that works — do the timbers stay on the west side since no boulders are being placed there or? Response: The approved variance was revised to include this encroachment. All timbers are being removed and where necessary for existing grades, the boulders are being installed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 11 /29/2011: Additional notes are needed to make sure that the curb line as it intersects the sidewalk drop to a 0 foot height. Also please make sure that it is clear that the driveway is to be concrete to the property line (important in the case that they decide not to use concrete for the parking lot) and that a concrete joint is to be provided at the property line. Response: Notes have been added to the grading plan. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 11/29/2011 Easements for the following items need to be submitted. Please let me know if you need a copy of the most current dedication language (it has been updated recently) Processing (TDRF) fees for each easement are $250 plus filing fees. ROW for Lake Street — 8 additional feet for a total'/2 width of 38 feet. Emergency Access Easement —through parking lot Utility and Drainage Easement —through parking lot Utility and Drainage Easement - adjacent to Lake St Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 11/23/2011: Please correct the legal description. Response: Legal description has been changed. Comment Number: 2 11 /2312011: Please add a north arrow. Response: North arrow added. Comment Number: 3 11 /2312011: There are minor line over text issues. Response: We have checked the drawings and fixed. Department: Zoning Contact: Gary Lopez, 970.416.2338, Ulopez(aifcgov.com Topic: General Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011 11/21/2011: Trash enclosure shall be of same material/coler as the building. Response: Trash enclosure matches building. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011 11/21/2011: Where will the bicycle parking go and for how many bikes? Not shown on site plan. Response: Each bike rack is now labeled on the site and landscape plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/21/2011 11/21/2011: While the development is in the Transportation Overlay Dist. or TOD the normal minimum parking spaces required would have been 56. While no minimum vehicle spaces required a recommendation that some off street parking be created. Response: On -street parking is available on Lake Street and substantial covered and non -covered bicycle and scooter parking will be provided. Residents are typically college students that either walk, ride their bikes, scooters to campus Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Sheri Langenberger, 970.221.6573, slangenberger(afcgov.com Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224.6143, lexOfcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 11/28/2011: Nocomments Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970.224.6152, dmartine(a)fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: Substantial electric utility system modifications will apply. Normal electric development charges as well as costs to modify the system will apply. Each apartment must be individually metered, and meters must be outdoors & accessable to utility personnel. Use of electric space heating is discouraged. If electric space heating is used, the rate for electric development charges is higher. Contact Light & Power Engineering at (970)221-6700 to coordinate the electric utility system design and costs. Response: Acknowledged. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970.221.6588, jcounty(ofcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 11/23/2011: No comments. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 6 11/23/2011: Please correct the legal description. Response: Legal description has been changed. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 4 11/23/2011: There are minor line over text issues. Response: We have checked the drawings and fixed. Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 Comment Originated: 11/23/2011 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Steve Olt, 970-221-6341, solt(a)fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: Current Planning did not receive Building Elevations (4 sides) sheet. Were they required as part of this Basic Development Review submittal? They are a requirement on the BDR submittal requirements/checklist. Are they Sheets Al & A2 of 4. Planning received Sheets A3 & A4 of 4. Response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11 /28/2011: The sketches and simulations on Sheets A3 & A4 of 4 show what appear to be 4-story elements on the new building. Is this correct and, if so, the Planning Objectives and Site Plan should reflect this? Response: The project is three as defined by the LUC and verified with Zoning. Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: Section 3.2.1(E)(5)(e) of the Land Use Code states: "Parking bays shall extend no more that fifteen (15) parking spaces without an intervening tree, landscape island or landscape peninsula". This requirement is not being met in the tier of 18 parking spaces along the east side of the property, east of the existing building. Response: As discussed with staff, the parking is ok as shown. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: Under Land -Use Statistics, Off -Street Parking on the Site Plan it shows 44 off-street spaces and 47 total spaces. What is the difference? Response: We have modified the note to read "47 spaces (including 3 handicap and 5 compact)" Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 11/28/2011 11/28/2011: The Site & Landscape Plans show bike racks in 3 different locations: 1) outside the east building entry on the existing building; 2) on new concrete just east of the swimming pool; and 3) in a covered area on new concrete between the existing and new buildings along the west side of the property. Perhaps the bike racks should be enhanced so that they are easier to see on the plans. Response: Each bike rack is now labeled on the site and landscape plans.