HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHOICE CENTER MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT - PDP - PDP110006 (15-08) - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Sincerely,
tneH. Aspen
Senior City Planner
Page 9
[7/22/08] Two 4" water services and meters for each of Bldgs 1 and 2 seem excessive.
Provide fixture counts and water service sizing calculations for these buildings.
Number: 5 Created: 7/22/2008
[9/23/08] Only 1 water service is shown to Bldg 2.
[7/22/08] For mixed -use buildings, provide separate water and sewer services for the
commercial and residential portions of the building.
Number: 9 Created: 7/22/2008
[9/23/08] In progress.
[7/22/08] The City will do some computer modeling of the proposed water lines to determine
if both water lines crossing College are needed.
Number: 102 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Install a sanitary MH in Stuart at the point where the sewer to north is being
abandoned.
Number: 103 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Water/sewer mains must be minimum of 5 feet from gutter flowline. Water main in
Choice Center Drive appears to be closer than 5 feet from west flowline.
Number: 104 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Correct the labeling of the proposed sanitary sewer. It appears to be labeled as
both 8" and 12".
Number: 105 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] See redlined utility plans for other comments.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: Zoning
Number: 51 Created: 7/24/2008
[9/12/08] Your request letter asks to increase the number of unrelated persons "to a
maximum of 3 individuals for 3 bedroom units and 4 individuals for 4 bedroom units". The
request to allow 3 individuals is not necessary and should be deleted. Section 3.8.16(A)(2)
allows "2 adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than 1 additional person". This
means that you are allowed 2 adults plus 1 other person, for a total of 3 persons, all of
whom can be unrelated to each other. Therefore, your request should only be to allow 4
unrelated persons in the 4 bedroom units.
[7/24/08] Clarification is needed regarding the request to allow the number of unrelated
persons to be "increased to one individual per bedroom for each unit". If this means that
they are planning on having only 1 person per bedroom, then the request should simply be
to allow 4 unrelated persons in each 4 bedroom unit. The current wording - "increased to
one individual per bedroom" when taken literally would imply that if the variance isn't
granted, a 1 bedroom unit won't be allowed to be occupied by anyone.
Be sure and return all of your redlined plans when you re -submit for final plan review.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6206.
Page 8
11. Please make sure that all information (plans, designs, calculations, descriptions, etc.) in
the CLOMR and LOMR submittals match the Development Plans.
12. Proposed floodplain and floodway limits shat not be shown on the plat or on the
drainage, grading, and site plans, etc. Please show floodplain and floodway boundaries
from current effective modeling only.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Stormwater
Number: 13 Created: 7/23/2008
[9/26/08] The report states at final compliance another look at the percent impervious will
take place. If the percent impervious were to increase with site plan changes above 75%,
on -site detention would be required.
[7/23/08] Please provide actual % impervious calculations for the proposed development to
determine if the site is under the assumed master plan % impervious of 75%. The standard
commercial % impervious numbers used in the calculations are lower than what is being
proposed. Instead of 60% impervious for some of the assumed basins, the number is
probably closer to 80%.
Number: 14 Created: 7/23/2008
[9/26/08] Some form of water quality mitigation should be proposed for the sub -basins that
drain into the storm sewer along Choice Center Drive. The City suggests proposing a
hydraulic separator near the downstream end of the storm sewer. At final compliance, a
determination can be made on the details of the water quality device.
The City finds the water quality mitigation techniques for the other sub -basins acceptable.
[7/23/08] Water quality mitigation needs to be designed and accounted for in the preliminary
submittal before a public hearing. The addition of water quality mitigation could have an
impact on the site plan.
Number: 59 Created: 7/25/2008
[9/26/08] Repeat Comment. Drainage easements are still needed for the storm sewer, and
for all areas that are being used for water quality mitigation.
[7/25/08] Drainage easements dedicated to the City of Fort Collins are required for all of the
storm sewers and the flood control swale.
Number: 122 Created: 9/26/2008
(9/26/08] Verification needs to take place on the condition of the existing storm sewer that is
being used as the outfall for the proposed storm sewer. The City can coordinate this and
even perform the inspection` The City has TV equipment to verify that the existing pipe is
still in working condition.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Roger Buffington
Topic: Plat
Number: 106 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Provide utility easement 15 feet on each side of sanitary sewer.
Topic: Water/Wastewater
Number: 4 Created: 7/22/2008
[9/23/08] Clarification needed on information submitted, and counts needed for Bldg 2.
Page 7
tighter turn radius and reduced turning speeds. Please check and provide the turning
template analysis.
[8/3/08] Please provide truck turning template analysis of the revised College median north
bound opening. Wanting to verify median bull nose shape and opening width are adequate
for trucks.
Department: Stormwater-Water-Wastewater Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Floodplain
Number: 121 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] 1. The Choice Center project is located in a FEMA regulatory floodway and
floodplain on Spring Creek. The development application must comply with all applicable
sections of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code.
2. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required to document and quantify all
proposed modifications to the floodway and floodplain per City Code 10-45(2)(a). The
CLOMR application shall be prepared for review and approval by City staff and FEMA, and
shall be supported by floodplain modeling and technical analysis consistent with floodplain
modeling guidelines, per City Code Sec. 10-45.
3. The CLOMR application shall be submitted to FEMA immediately following City approval.
FEMA's acceptance of the CLOMR as proposed shall be a condition of approval for the 50%
submittal.
4. No site work may commence prior to approval of the CLOMR by FEMA per City Code 10-
45(2)(a). Floodplain Administration will only agree to the early release of a grading permit if
the Floodplain Use Permit and No -Rise Certification are approved, if all other departments
are in agreement, and if the applicant understands that all overlot grading shall commence
at their risk. Revisions to the site plan may be necessary based on FEMA's comments on
the CLOMR application. A Floodplain Use Permit shall be required for each building and
site element (parking lots, drainage channels, landscape features, detention features, etc.).
A $325 permit fee and hydraulic review fee is required for the Floodplain Use Permit for the
channel construction. All other Floodplain Use Permits have a $25 permit fee.
5. Per the e-mail dated September 8, 2008, construction of parking lots within floodways
shall be prohibited, per FEMA and FEMA's contractor at Baker Corp. Please revise the
development plan with all parking areas removed from the proposed CLOMR floodway.
6. A FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval for
Building #2. Please allow 2 weeks for review and approval.
7. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for any structures at the Choice Center
until the LOMR is approved by FEMA, and until an Elevation Certificate is approved for any
buildings in the floodplain, specifically Building #2.
8. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is required immediately after completion of
development activities at the Choice Center site, per City Code 10-45(2)(b). The LOMR
application shall be prepared for review and approval by City staff and FEMA.
9. As noted in July 25, 2008 comments, the Applicant's engineer shall provide quantitative
evidence, supported by engineering calculations, to prove the flood control channel on the
west side of the residential structure is erosionally stable as designed. The channel is so
close to the railroad embankment and the proposed residential building that any failure
caused by erosion may threaten the life safety and property of the railroad and the student
housing complex. Please refer to specific comments in the July 17, 2008 Floodplain
Comments delivered to Nolte Associates, Inc., specifically Item #10, #10-a, #10-b, #15-b,
and #15-c.
10. Please refer to the 50% floodplain review checklist for additional information required on
the construction plans and drainage report.
Page 6
best to include any comments resulting from that meeting in the final comment letter.
Although variance request letters have been submitted to the City, CDOT will need to issue
formal waivers for any work being done in the College ROW that does not meet CDOT
standards for street construction.
Topic: Technical Services
Number: 119 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Plat - The boundary closes but the legal does not. Some line over text conflicts
need to be fixed. Please see redlines for clarification.
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: Electric Utility
Number: 2 Created: 7/7/2008
[9/15/08]
[7/7/08] It appears that several existing electric facilities will need to be relocated.
Relocation of existing electric will be at the developer's expense, in addition to normal
electric development charges.
Number: 92 Created: 9/15/2008
[9/15/08] The electric service (and I believe some other utilities) that serve the existing tire
center are located where building #2 is planned. The new location for this electric service as
shown on the utility plan may be problematic. The developer will need to install a new
service from the existing transformers at the N.W. corner of proposed buliding #3 to the tire
shop meters. The lateral separation between this electric service and the water & sewer
services must be at least equal to the depth of the deepest of these utility services.
Installation of this electric service will need to be coordinated with Light & Power
Engineering (221-6700).
Number: 93 Created: 9/15/2008
[9/15/08] The developer will need to coordinate the power requirements for all 4 buildings
with Light & Power Engineering.
Number: 94 Created: 9/15/2008
[9/15/08] Light & Power will need to install an electric system from the building #1
transformer to the building #2 transformer, then to the existing transformer at the N.W.
corner of building #3. This line will need to be installed along the front of building #1 (under
the sidewalk is okay) as long as there is a minimum lateral separation of 10 feet between
the power line and the 8" sewer main. In order to install this power line, the northerly water
meter pit will need to be relocated farther to the west.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Carle Dann
Topic: Fire
Number: 120 Created: 9/24/2008
[9/24/08] PFA has no additional comments or concerns at this time.
Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Ward Stanford
Topic: Traffic
Number: 89 Created: 8/3/2008
[9/22/08] The 3/4 turn median configuration is good, but just upon visual review it looks like
the opening for the southbound left needs to be moved a little more south. This makes for a
Page 5
Number:.109 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Plat - The requested public access easement connection to the north has been
provided to facilitate a future connection however, the location does not line up well or
connect logically with the existing private drive isle. There also appears to be a large
existing tree that may block this location. Further discussion with transportation Planning
and Current Planning is needed to resolve this cross lot access issue.
Number: 110 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] General Notes - Please remove the reference to the Modification listed under Note
48. Only variances to the LCUASS standards should be listed under this section. The
modification will be subject to approval by the hearing officer where variances are approved
administratively by Engineering.
Number: 111 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Please add a Note 7 on Sheet 5, Grading, indicating that any retaining walls over
40 inches in height measured from the bottom of footing to top of wall are under separate
permit by the Building Department.
Number: 112 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] No plan or profile design has been provided for the storm drain system under
Stuart Street. I will defer to Storm Water but I believe this design needs to be provided and
all maintenance responsibility should be clearly identified public versus private.
Number: 113 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Please call out all pedestrian access ramps within the public ROW with the
appropriate LCUASS 2007 standard with truncated domes.
Number: 114 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] 1 believe that the cross walk striping across Stuart will need to be modified or
skewed to line up with the ramps. I will confirm this with Transportation Planning and Traffic.
Number: 115 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Stuart Street should terminate at the far west end as a standard street section with
private access drive approaches into the parking lot and onto Choice Center Drive. Please
revise the street design to show standard high volume drive approaches at both access
points and call them out with the LCUASS standard 707. Please only provide a profile
design for that portion of Stuart that will be public. The access to the parking lot area needs
to be wider such that vehicles leaving the parking lot are not directed into oncoming traffic
on Stuart. Please see the redlines for clarification.
Number: 116 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Please call out the drive approach being constructed on College across from
Parker with the LCUASS standard (707) and identify the width of this driveway. Provide
LCUASS DWG 707 on the detail sheets.
Number: 117 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23108] See redlines for all other minor comments related to drafting & labeling.
Number: 118 Created: 9/23/2008
[9123/08] 1 will be meeting with CDOT on September 26 to review these latest plans and
discuss waivers for the median and left turn bay work proposed on College. I will do my
Page 4
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Dana Leavitt
Topic: General
Number: 78 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/08] Do not see on Site Plan. Unable to comment for Plat until I review drawing.
[7/29/08] The following note shall be added to the Site Plan and Plat at final review:
For allowable uses within a buffer zone, refer to Section 3.4.1(E)(2) of the Land Use code.
Number: 79 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/08] Require meeting to finalize.
[7/29/081 During the final review process, a "Limits of Development" line will be determined
and shown on the following plans:
Site, Landscape, Existing conditions and Demolition, Utilities, Grading and Erosion Control.
Topic: Grading Plan
Number: 80 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/08] Clarify why straight trickle pan is needed by CLOMR/LOMR design. If in fact it is
not required, address 7-29 comment.,
[7/29/08] Tricle pan in swale adjacent to the railroad R.O.W. should reflect the grading of
the side slope and walkway, creating a more curvilinear alignment.
Number: 81 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/08] have not seen utility plans, as soon as I do, I'll provide comment.
[7/29/08] Provide plan and profile of storm draim line adjacent to Spring Creek, between
SDMH-OS1 and SDMH-OS2. The creek and the retaining wall are very close together,
which may have impacts to the creek.
Number: 82 Created: 7/29/2008
[9/23/08] Show edge of creek and wetlands on appropriate plans for evaluation. Did not
review utility plans, will comment once plans are reviewed.
[7/29/08) The plan does not show any kind of riprap at the south end of the tricle pan where
it ties into the creek. Provide details of design to allow for evaluation on impacts to the
creek and associated wetlands.
Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Randy Maizland
Topic: Engineering
Number: 107 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] The City has a new standard Plat note that is required on all plats. I have
attached the new note to the redlines. Please add this note anywhere on the Plat cover
sheet.
Number: 108 Created: 9/23/2008
[9/23/08] Plat - Please add a line next to the label for all vacations or dedications by
separate document where the reception numbers for the recorded documents can be hand
written in before the Plat gets filed. All dedication and vacation applications must be
submitted with review fees paid prior to scheduling a hearing. If a signed deed of dedication
is not yet available, a letter of intent from the owner (Tire Store) must be provided prior to
hearing. New dedications are $250 per document and vacations are $400.
Page 3
+Engineering needs the application and TDRF fees
+Planning and Transportation Planning need the ped LOS situation addressed (which we
saw a draft of at staff review).
+Planning needs special height review materials.
+All the Stormwater pages need to reflect the site as currently mapped.
+Adjust design of the south parking lot nose to eliminate traffic conflict.
+Adjust design of Choice Center Drive to reflect a drive approach and/or submit a variance
to go over 750sf of drainage.
Topic: Site Plan
Number: 21 Created: 7/23/2008
[9/26/08]
[7/23/08] I'm still not seeing any context to the north towards Prospect. We need to see the
buildings and the proposed pedestrian connection from your site to Prospect. Please add
this to your site plan or as a separate exhibit.
Number: 73 Created: 7/28/2008
[9/26/08]
[7/28/08] 1 am concerned about the plaza design. The walkways are narrow given how
many students will be coming and going on them and there aren't areas to eat or bbq or sit
and read. Clark Mapes suggested looking at the University Village courtyards on campus
for ideas.
Number: 100 Created: 9/16/2008
[9/16/08] Since your last submittal, Building 2 parking lot no longer meets dimensional
standards. The drive aisle must be 24 feet wide and overhang can only happen where there
is sufficient clear walkway beyond. On the north side, you will be left with just 4 feet of
walkway, and yet your main (and only) entrance to Building 1 spills everyone out onto this
sidewalk. This does not make sense.
Number: 125 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] Wherever there are ramps, dip the sidewalk if the ramp would pinch the through
walk.
Number: 126 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] There needs to be landscaping (10' setback from Stuart, 15' setback from
College).
Topic: Elevations
Number: 127 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] Need elevation details of trash enclosures. Need color rendered north and south
elevations of Building 1 and east and north elevations of Building 2.
Number: 128 Created: 9/26/2008
(9/26/08] Consider revising your design for the north side of Building 3 to be a wider walk
with trees in grates separating peds from vehicles.
Topic: Lighting Plan
Number: 129 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] How will the main entrance to Building 1 be lit? The lighting plan doesn't show
any building mounted light fixtures. Please add.
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
Dave Pietenpol Date: 9/29/2008
Jim Sell Design
153 W. Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for Choice Center Mixed -Use Redevelopment PDP- TYPE
I, and we offer the following comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Anne Aspen
Topic: General
Number: 77 Created: 7/28/2008
[9/26/08]
[7/28/08] For the Choice Center Drive elevations to be pedestrian friendly as was intended,
additional design features need to be incorporated like additional entries, porticos, perhaps
metal awnings or trellises. This is not a requirement per code but a suggestion.
Number: 95 Created: 9/16/2008
[9/16/08] The following departments or agencies have no further concerns with the
proposed project: Comcast, PFA, Water Conservation.
Number: 96 Created: 9/16/2008
[9/16/08] 1 have made minor edits to the request to increase occupancy. Please see
redlines.
Number: 97 Created: 9/16/2008
[9/16/08] 1 know you are interested in scheduling the hearing as soon as possible. We will
do our best to accommodate your request. Please be aware that I need one full week to
write the staff report and the hearing officer needs one full week to review the staff report. If
we overlap staff review, I'll need to be sure to have all items for the hearing no later than 2
weeks prior to the hearing (including the special height review items, north and east color
rendered elevations for Building 2) so that I will have time to review the project and write the
staff report concurrently. I have sent a letter via email to Walker and Dave spelling out what
staff members have indicated must be done prior to hearing. I have also sent a letter dated
9/17/08 to Walker and Dave reiterating that Capstone assumes all risk taking this project to
hearing prior to FEMA approval. If FEMA requires changes that affect the site plan, at best,
you'll need to request a minor amendment or at worst, you'll need to go back through staff
review and public hearing again.
Number: 123 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] Once the prehearing issues have been addressed, you can contact me to
schedule your administrative hearing. I'll need 2 sets of the full site, arch, landscape and
lighting planset plus 2 plats. Remember to include 2 sets of the color rendered elevations
and special height review materials.
Number: 124 Created: 9/26/2008
[9/26/08] As of the staff review, the pre -hearing issues are as follows:
+Engineering needs the LOI
Page 1