Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD TOWN FLATS - FDP - FDP130049 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 -Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcqov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/20/2013 10/08/2013: Show the valve on the swivel tee where the line extends to the F Hyd. NE response: The valve is now shown and labeled correctly. 08/20/2013: There does not appear to be adequate space for the fire hydrant located adjacent to the alley. A minimum of 2 feet (3 feet would be better) clear distance is required between the fire hydrant and the curb/curb return. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/20/2013 10/08/2013: Does this submittal reflect the potholed location of the 12-inch main? NE response: Yes, the drawings reflect the 12-inch water main location, as potholed and surveyed in the field. 08/20/2013: Was the 12" main on the east side of Mason potholed to get an accurate location? Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/20/2013 10/08/2013: (Detail is in progress. Will be ready to include in final plans.) NE response: This detail is currently being worked through with the City Water Utility. 08/20/2013: The Standard Detail for the Meter vault will be modified to move the MH access out of the sidewalk. This revision will also include the requirement to extend conduits to the face of the building to mount the radio units for the automated meter reading system. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Revise notes as shown on the redlined utility plans. NE response: Redlined comments have been addressed. Department: Zoning Contact: Peter Barnes, 970-416-2355, pbarnes@fcgov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 09/25/2013 09/25/2013: Label the accessible parking spaces on the site plan. RM response: Accessible parking spaces have been indicated 10/13/2013: Stop signs (R1-1) should be provided at both ends of the alley. NE response: The requested signs have been added. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/23/2013 10/11/2013: Comment regarding continued use of the NbL and SbL by area traffic noted. The Site Distributed traffic, Figure 5, still assigns SbL traffic. Short Term Total analysis in the Appendix also has SbL traffic assigned. Please revise the TIS to remove and reallocate the SbL turning traffic at all time periods beyond the Existing conditions. See Revised Traffic Study 08/23/2013: The intersection of Maple and Mason no longer allows N/S left turns onto Maple. Please revise TIS evaluation at the intersection. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/23/2013 10/13/2013: TIS suggests the westbound left from Cherry into the alley should be restricted. City agrees. Applicant should expect to provide signage to discourage westbound motorists from turning left into the Alley. NE response: Signage consistent with the Traffic Engineering recommendations has been added. 08/23/2013: Please include in the TIS the review of the possible west bound left and east bound right turn auxiliary lanes on Cherry into the alley. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 10/11/2013 10/11/2013: The Mason and Maple 2018 Total Traffic analysis has discrepancies with the turning counts in Figure 7. The SbL movement is still analyzed with SbL turning traffic volumes. Please review and revise the 2018 Total Traffic analysis. See Revised Traffic Study Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Aaron Iverson, 970-416-2643, aiverson@fcqov.com Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/23/2013 -Is there an access easement across the parking lot to and from curb cut on College? This movement is not addressed in the traffic study but should be discussed. - The north alley access to Cherry may be closed or moved in the future to implement a railroad crossing quiet zone, this may impact circulation in the future -Suggestion: Consider alley improvements to create an enhanced alley experience similar to other downtown alleys. Topic: Traffic Impact Study Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/23/2013 - Disagree with the Bike LOS findings in the Traffic Impact Study, considering the railroad crossing on Mason. This needs to be reflected and addressed. - Disagree with the Ped LOS findings considering there is no sidewalk on Cherry (the north side of the block), needs to be addressed in the study with potential mitigation. - Ped LOS needs to discuss the pedestrian crossing of Cherry at Mason. - The TIS did not include the chosen ped and bike destinations, would like to see what the assumptions were. Department: Water -Wastewater Engineering setup issue, but will need to be corrected for mylars. RM response: Printing should pick up entire titleblock. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 5 10/09/2013: We were not routed any plans. 08/21/2013: No comments. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/08/2013: Please add dimensions and easement type to the black hatched area in the center of the property. Also clarify the dimensions that are shown. See redlines. NE response: This has been corrected, per the redlines. 08/21/2013: Please add bearings & distances for all easement lines shown. See redlines. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/08/2013: Please add sheet LS501 to the index. See redlines. RM response: Sheet has been added. 08/21/2013: The index on sheet LS001 does not match the sheet LS101 title. See redlines. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/08/2013: There are new line over text issues on sheet LS102. See redlines. RM response: Line over text has been resolved. O8/21/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet LS102. See redlines. Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Project Development Plan in the titleblock is cut off. This looks to be a printing setup issue, but will need to be corrected for mylars. RM response: Printing should pick up entire titleblock. Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Ward Stanford, 970-221-6820, wstanford@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 10/13/2013 10/13/2013: Please add No Left Turn (R3-2) signage on the right hand side of Cherry just east of the alley. Also include Do Not Enter (R5-1)signage angled to the west bound motorist. NE response: The requested signage has been added. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 10/13/2013 10/13/2013: It looks like one, possibly two parking spaces on Maple will need to be removed to provide reasonable sight distance of east bound vehicles. Please check condition and provide sight distances determined with the removal of one and removal of two parking spaces. The removal should also be discussed with Randy Hensley of Parking Services. NE Response: This development proposal is not changing the referenced condition. The Applicant is neutral to this issue and will defer to whatever internal resolution is reached between City Traffic Operations and Parking Services. Should the City determine that re -striping is necessary, there may be an opportunity to coordinate the work with the Old Town Flats construction activities. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 10/13/2013 is practical to combine the building's fire line and hydrant supply line. Without calculations to back the current plan, it is unclear if this condition will be sustainable, as pumping from a hydrant should not reduce the minimum water flow required by the fire pump. Another option would be to create separate service lines for the hydrant and fire line. NE Response: Hydraulic calculations will be provided by the fire protection engineer prior to final mylars. Should adjustments be necessary to the hydrant and supply line, they will be made at that time as well. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 08/21/2013: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq-ft and in a sensitive area, therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted for FDP. The erosion control requirements are in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. Current Erosion Control Materials Submitted does not meet requirements. Please submit; Erosion Control Plan, Erosion Control Report, and an Escrow / Security Calculation. If you need clarification concerning this section, or if there are any questions please contact Jesse Schlam 970-218-2932 or email @jschlam@fcgov.com NE response: Additional Erosion Control information has been supplied with the Final Plan documents. Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/19/2013 08/19/2013: Stormwater is ready for a hearing. Please see minor comments redlined on the plans. NE response: Acknowledged Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: The issue of private or public storm sewer in the alley needs to be resolved with City Engineering. NE response: The storm sewer in the alley shall be considered a public improvement. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/09/2013: We were not routed any plans. We need to verify that these issues have been resolved. Acknowledged 08/21/2013: There are line over text issues on sheet PDP 2. See redlines. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/08/2013 10/08/2013: Project Development Plan in the title block is cut off. This looks to be a printing Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: Add this Street Tree Note: The Developer shall replace dead or dying street trees after planting until final inspection and maintenance acceptance by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Division. All street trees must be established, an approved species and of acceptable condition prior to acceptance. RM response: Note has been added to landscape plans. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/05/2013 09/26/2013: Private lighting cannot be used to replace Streetlights provided by Light & Power. Therefore, the existing light appx. 120 ft. N. on Mason cannot be removed. It could be relocated (at the developer's expense) toward the north. Required clearances between trees and the light will apply. Please contact Doug Martine in Light & Power Engineering with any questions (970)224-6152. RM response: Light has been adjusted directly to the West per Doug's suggestion. 08/05/2013: There is an existing streetlight on Mason, approximately 120 feet north of Maple and one at the N.E. corner of Mason & Maple. The exact locations of these lights needs to be shown on the landscape plan. Street tree locations need to be adjusted as necessary to provide 40 feet of clearance between the tree and the lights (15 feet if the tree is an ornamental type). Department: PFA Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jynxwiler@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 08/21/2013: TURNING RADII 061FC 503.2.4 and Local Amendments: The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. At this time, the turning radius from the alley onto the EAE is shown to be a 15' radius rather than the required 25' radius. As this overall site is already poorly accessible by emergency vehicles, it is critical that the fire lane function as intended. NE response: A Turning Maneuver Exhibit has been provided to PFA confirming sufficient geometry. Comment Number: 3 10/09/2013: EAE Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 Please label the EAE on the plat. NE response: The hatching has been revised to make the EAE labeling legible. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: After talking with Roger Buffington and Assistant Fire Marshal Joe Jaramillo, I would recommend a certified sprinkler contractor perform a hydraulic analysis to determine if it sidewalks were envisioned by Current and Transportation Planning along the public streets and may still be preferred over the detached sidewalks. Note that comments from Tom Knostman with the City Streets Department would ideally want to see 8 foot wide parkway strips, if a parkway strip is to ultimately be installed, or the use of tree grates and an attached sidewalk system. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/09/2013: The revised plans show a 4.5' clear for pedestrians to the planting area surrounding the existing appurtenances. Is there an opportunity to afford additional width through converting the planting area to hard surface? RM response: These planting areas have been minimized and the clear area is now 5-6" total. The planting areas are highly recommended to help soften the multiple street and train signalization in this area. O8/21/2013: The plans don't show the existing truncated dome detection /access ramp installed at the southwest comer of the site (northeast corner of Mason Street and Maple Street). The plans need to reflect how the truncated dome/access ramp is to be situated with the new infrastructure. Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: The depiction of the appurtenances at the corner of Maple and Mason don't appear to necessarily be consistent between the construction and site/landscape plan sets. The type of appurtenance should be labeled and indicated if to remain or removed/relocated, with this information consistent between both sets. RM response: All street and train signalization in this area should be consistent and called out on plans. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: The plat has some dark hatching that leaves an area unclear as to its purpose. NE response: The hatching has been revised Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 10/09/2013: Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 Street Trees along Mason: The row of four proposed street trees located along Mason are close to the RR tracks. This is particularly true of the north two trees. To achieve a row of 4 street trees along Mason with separation from the tracks consider the following possible option. Change the species to Princeton Sentry Ginkgo. (Ginkgo biloba —Princeton Sentry) this Cultivar has a heath of 40 feet and a 15 foot crown spread. Keep the location of the south tree as shown and space the others at 20 feet between trees to achieve a row of 4 trees. The north tree will now be further to the south providing better separation from the RR tracks. Evaluate if this possible street tree design solution will provide separation from the tracks. RM response: This street tree design solution works well with both the train tracks and the lighting. Doug Martine (Light & Power) also approved this solution with the lighting/tree layout. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 08/23/2013 10/09/2013: With the understanding that Stormwater is considering this line public, the line can be located within the alley right-of-way. NE response: It is acknowledged (and confirmed by Stormwater Staff) that this is a public storm sewer. 08/23/2013: The storm line along the alley would need to be a public storm line in order to travel within the alley right-of-way. If ultimately allowed, street patching for the storm line in the alley would need to be for the entire alley width. Topic: General Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/09/2013: The design for the bikelane I suspect will be viewed favorably. I will look to have the design reviewed by the overall folks in Transportation for verification on any additional thoughts or concerns and update this comment. NE Response: Acknowledged. 08/21/2013: The creation of a separate bike lane for Mason Street is needed. The proposed design does not create a separate bike lane north of Maple Street as bike are still either combined with vehicles on -street, or combined with pedestrians off-street. A distinct bike lane needs to be built with the project, with the goal of aligning with the bikelane along Mason Street on the south side of Maple Street. Transportation Planning has created a sketch of how the bikelane can be accommodated. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/09/2013: 1 wasn't routed a building elevation set, and perhaps this comment is evident in that drawing set. What is the height of the long concrete seatwall running parallel along Mason Street right-of-way, as well as the additional concrete seatwalls running perpendicular to Mason Street? Understanding the height (and whether they use additional subsurface footing/foundation components) would be helpful to ascertain encroachment permit process. RM response: All seatwalls on site are stone block seating sitting on a crushed gravel base and are 18" tall on average. 08/21/2013: The placement of the various structures in right-of-way have varying degrees of concern. The elongated seatwall1retaining wall shown on the northwest corner of the property in close proximity to the railroad would need to be placed outside of right-of-way. The smaller concrete seatwalls indicated on the site plan may be approvable through an excavation permit, subject to review of their specific design and review of placement with the finalized streetscape design along Mason Street, looking to ensure sufficient through clearance for the general public occurs. The stairs located along Maple Street right-of-way should ideally be removed at this time and designed without the stairs, if the applicant still wants to pursue the placement of the stairs in right-of-way, additional review and discussion is needed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10109/2013: The proposed design meets the minimum requirements set forth in LCUASS. From my perspective, I have no issue or concerns with the revised design. I'll defer to Current and Transportation Planning on whether they have concerns with the detached vs. attached sidewalk system. NE response: The design included with the Final Plan documents is consistent with the latest decisions of City Staff. 08/21/2013: The parkways shown between the sidewalks and Mason/Maple street are 5 feet in width and would not meet the minimum the parkway strip width for either street (8 feet for Mason Street, 6.5 feet for Maple Street). It was commented on the PDR that 15 foot wide attached Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: Please label the depth of the projecting "eyebrow cornice" or provide a detail so the extent of the projection can be ascertained. OZ response: The depths of the relative planes have been indicated. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: The treatment of the pedestrian features along Mason Street needs to upgraded. The seat walls should be composed of natural stone versus concrete. The surface treatment should be pavers versus scored concrete. The standard is rigorous and requires that "...such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or manmade." RM response: All concrete seatwalls have been changed to stone block seatwalls and scored concrete in those same pedestrian features have been changed to concrete pavers. Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: Regarding bicycle parking, there seems to be an over -reliance on providing a bicycle parking rack inside each unit. Please consider adding more bike racks in the parking lot that, to a certain degree, can be weather -protected to be classified as enclosed. Also, it would be helpful to label all bike racks on the site plan. RM response: (6) additional covered bike racks have been added under the building overhang which will accommodate (12) total bikes. Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: On the Lighting Plan Schedule, please add a column for Quantity. OZ response: Quantities have been added as requested. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/09/2013: 1 was not routed a building elevation set and will look to verify this information and update this comment accordingly. Acknowledged 08/21/2013: Please indicate the property line on elevations in order to demonstrate whether balconies and other appurtenances above the first floor are possibly encroaching onto public right-of-way. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 08/21/2013 10/09/2013: The response indicates the likelihood of cover under 3' from top of grade. At time of final, additional options would need to be explored that would achieve the 3' minimum, Patching limits would also need to be defined on the construction plan set. NE response: A Plan & Profile Sheet (C301) is included with the Final Utility Plans. 3' of cover is provided within the public right-of-way. Limits of patching are shown. 08/21/2013: Any initial indication as to what the proposed cover of the storm drain outfall under the alley, as well as how much patching would be envisioned in the alley right-of-way? F6rt Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/d`eve/opmentreview October 14, 2013 Dave Derbes Brinkman Development, LLC 3003 E Harmony Rd Fort Collins, CO 80528 RE: Old Town Flats, PDP130022, Round Number 2 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, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: On both the west and south elevations, the two stair tower modules that are clad in "ground -face masonry," should instead be clad in "brick, color: orange" at least to the full height of the first story. OZ response: The problem with changing to brick is that the CMU masonry is required for structural reasons. What we proposed was to do split -face block up to level 2 and then do banding with split -face block above. In discussion on this with Ted on October 18th, Ted indicated that this would be acceptable. Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: The problem with the "ground -face masonry" is that it reads as smooth -face unless you are viewing from just a few feet away. From a distance, this type of c.m.u. is indistinguishable from smooth -face. Please substitute textured or split -face c.m.u. instead. OZ response: See response to item 15 above. Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 10/09/2013 10/09/2013: On the south elevation, please add three Juliet balconies on the top floor to match the west elevation. OZ response: We have elected to do full balconies on level 5 at the south and west elevations.