HomeMy WebLinkAboutWAFFLE HOUSE - PDP - 17-02 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)Related to other comments, show and label location of meter pit and curb stop. Meter pit and
curb stop may not be place in traveled way. Provide the standard meter pit and water service
details on the detail sheet.
88
Utility plans indicate 2 water services. Our records only indicate one water service. Field locate
and correctly show all existing water/sewer services.
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols
Topic: General
1
Please REMOVE signage from building elevations - separate review and permit is required.
We don't want it included in the approved PDP as it may cause confusion in later years.
Signage is not specific to those locations you have shown, only specific to allotment and
location at the time a sign permit is applied for and issued. FYI we have a Neighborhood Sign
District in which we require that signs be shown and approved as part of the PDP, but this is not
in that District. Please contact zoning at 221-6760 if you need clarification.
If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project,
please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6225.
Sincerely,
Clark Mapes
City Planner
discuss how water quality will be improved with the green space at the south of the lot. The
green space provides a break in imperviousness as discussed in Volume 3 of the UDCM.
94
The drainage to the south edge of the site looks like it is creating a number of questions and
problems. First, the alley drains north. Second, the big elm tree is in a raised area that blocks
the swale. Third, the swale is virtually up against the north side of the adjacent building, where
winter shadow will tend to create freezing and accumulation of snow/slush/ice. Fourth, the
swale is shown as a shrub planting with thick, thorny shrubs which would tend to obstruct
drainage. Should the whole site simply drain south and east?
Topic: Erosion/Sediment Control
56
1. There is neither a report nor calculations
2. Plan needs to have standard erosion control notes.
Topic: Grading Plan
55
Repeat Comment - 8/20/02. The site plan shows a curb along the south side of the parking lot
and the grading plan shows no curb. It is assumed that a concrete strip curb is proposed that
will be flush with the asphalt to allow drainage to flow into the Swale. Please clarify.
84
The flow in the alley heads north, not south as shown with the flow arrows on the grading plan.
The corner lot elevations on the grading plan also show the grading sloping to the north. Is the
intent still for the site grading to slope to the south when the surrounding area slopes to the
north? This would create two vertical "lips" where the two sloping planes meet. Please clarify.
Department: Water Wastewater Issue Contact: Jeff Hill
Topic: Landscape Plans
89
Correctly show all existing water and sewer services.
See site, landscape and utility plans for other comments. Call Jeff Hill at 221-6700 with any
questions.
Topic: Site Plan
85
Previous plans indicated existing water service was just south of the existing building. This plan
shows the existing water service in the driveway. If this is correct, this is a problem — the meter
pit and curb stop can not be located in the driveway, which would create the need for a different
(new) tap location.
Topic: Overall Utility Plan
86
Plans call for up -sizing the existing water service. Provide flow rate demands for our review to
make sure that flows don't exceed meter capacity.
87
92
A CDOT access permit will be required of this project since College Ave is a State Highway
Please contact Tess Jones of the Region 4 Traffic office for further information.
93
Please show any street cuts needed. If street cuts are needed in College Avenue, a CDOT
Utility Access Permit will be required. Also, please add the following note to the plans if a cut is
needed: Limits of street cut are approximate. Final limits are to be determined in the field by
the City Engineering Inspector. All repairs are to be in accordance with City street repair
standards.
Topic: Grading Plan
37
Please provide off -site contours and spot grades to show how the site fits into the surrounding
context. Generally, contours should be extended a minimum of 50' offsite to show drainage
patterns.
80
Please more clearly label existing contours.
Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez
Topic: General
43
Address Numerals: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and
posted with a minimum of 6-inch numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on
brown brick are not acceptable) 97 UFC 901.4.4
44
Water Supply: No commercial building can be greater then 300 feet from a fire hydrant. Each
hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure
of 20 psi. 97 UFC 901.2.2.2
45
A Hood and Duct Fire Suppression system shall be required. The system plans shall be
submitted to Joe Jaramillo (PFA) for review and approval prior to installation.
Topic: Utility Plans
48
PFA has no new comments. Comments dated 5/1/02 still pertain.
Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque
Topic: Drainage
47
Repeat Comment - 8/20/02 The report is sufficient and all data is present, but flows need to be
calculated for the 100-year storm and the minor(10-year) storm, not just the minor storm. Also,
the minimum time of concentration the City uses is 5 minutes. With a 5 minute T.O.C. and
using 100-year storm, i= 9.95 inches/hour. Please revise calculations. Please include a
drainage report with existing and proposed flows with supporting calculations, (C-factors,
T.O.C., etc.). Discuss how flow is either reduced or the same as existing conditions. Also,
Topic: Demolition Plan
24
Is note #9 needed? It seems that all existing asphalt is planned to be demolished.
Topic: General
13
Clearly dimension and label all ROW/easements/property lines on all plans.
18
Please see redlined plans for additional comments.
42
Existing features should be shown for a minimum of 150' beyond the project limits on utility
plans.
66
Please match site, landscape and utility plans (i.e. - driveway radius).
76
Please bind the sheets for the utility plan set. Stapling the sheets would be acceptable, but
loose sheets are not.
77
Alley improvements will not be required at this time, but the Waffle House will be responsible for
their portion of alley improvements at such time as the City deems the improvements should be
made.
78
As stated in the attached letter, the variance request for parking setbacks was only partially
improved. Parking space #1 needs to be removed.
79
With the wheel stops added in the parking lot, the parking spaces are reduced by 2 feet, not
meeting the minimum 17' length. Related to this, is a concrete edge needed to contain the
asphalt so it doesn't crumble over time? The whole design of this strip needs to be clarified.
81
FYI- City will not maintain special paving patterns in the ROW.
Also, building footing/eaves/etc. must not extend into the ROW.
82
Most of these comments are repeat comments and need to be addressed. If you have any
questions regarding the engineering comments, please contact Katie Moore at (970) 221-6605.
83
Please remember to include all redlines with resubmittals. I did not receive my site plan
redlines with this resubmittal. (8,12.02)
Department: Engineering
Topic: Utility Plans
19
Please re -title the cover sheet as:
Utility Plans for
Waffle House, 616 S. College Ave.
Lot 9, Block 126, City of Fort Collins
Month, 2002
(Repeat 8.12.02)
Issue Contact: Katie Moore
Larimer County, Colorado
20
Benchmarks should be referenced in note #40.
sure to reference two benchmarks, as required
benchmarks are still missing.
A separate heading is not needed. Please be
(repeat 8.12.02) The descriptions of the
21
Please label the topographic survey as (for information only) on the index, and rename sheet c-
1 as the Overall Utility Plan.
22
Please locate the city's signature block on the lower right hand corner of each sheet except for
the topographic survey (typ).
25
Please provide a legend for each sheet.
26
Please show existing features with a ghosted line weight.
Topic: Overall Utility Plan (C-1)
28
Please show and label driveway as concrete to the ROW line.
29
Please show existing buildings adjacent to the site as well as the east edge of the alley ROW.
30
Where does the gas line go (north side of the building)? Is this a new gas line in a utility
easement on adjacent property? Does it go under the wall? Is there room for a meter between
the wall and the building? Previous comments from Xcel noted that existing service is 3/a" and
questioned whether that would need to be reinforced.
31
Please show the existing driveway to the north of the site.
34
Please remove unnecessary items as redlined.
latitude, the proposed commercial building should be in more in character with the historic
context, without direct imitation of the historic style.
2. 3.5.3(D)(1) - The building design does not contribute to the uniqueness of the CC district
with urban design characteristics that the standards require. Materials and elements are not
adequately tailored specifically to the site and its CC District context.
3. 4.14(E)(2)d - The 20-foot minimum height standard is to define the street as a space - as a
wall defines a room as a space - and to add architectural interest consistent with the zone
district. As discussed, it is not to add small peak elements onto otherwise low buildings.
The CC District originally had a standard requiring at least a second story on buildings,
consistent with the description of this district in City Plan. A later compromise was made to
require the minimum height but not necessarily an actual second story. The compromise is to
prompt consideration of a second story, and achieve some of the urban design effects if an
actual second story is not feasible. The addition of the small peaked protrusion does not meet
this intent.
The building technically meets the minimum 20-foot height standard due to a loophole created
by the wording. As discussed in the meetings, the wording allows for a low -slung building to
meet the minimum height if a narrow point is added anywhere on the building.
Therefore, staff is not requesting revisions based on the height standard. However, additional
height along the street may be needed to provide room for the design revisions noted below.
Suggested Revisions.
1. An overhanging, 3-dimensional cornice where a flat roof is used. Overhanging eaves with
trim, fascia, brackets, etc. would be appropriate where a sloped roof is used.
2. Prominent, 3-dimensional sills under windows. Precast concrete products exist which would
work well for sills and cornices while remaining compatible with the block masonry.
Also, identify window trim materials and colors on elevations.
3. Some kind of frieze panel, where signage could go, defined by detailing in the masonry. Is
architectural lighting the appropriate way to light the panel?
4. Why not end the awning at the north edge of the building, to emphasize the major difference
and transition between the north and south sides of the building? This minor element would
reinforce the fit of the building to its location. Plus, is there room for it to extend north?
5. The Hardiplank siding on the back of the peak is not needed for historic compatibility, so do
not feel obligated to include it as a response to staff on that point.
6. Plans and elevations do not show any rooftop mechanical equipment. Is it all contained
within the structure? It needs to be, so that it is not seen from above (upper floors of existing or
future buildings in the area) or from the ground. Any vents, conduit, meters, etc. that protrudes
from the architecture must be painted to match.
Topic: Site Plan
95
Please call Clark Mapes to discuss the colored and scored concrete panels. Will the acute
angles be durable? Does the gray border visually reduce the width of the sidewalks? How will
this be done?
t lb
LAND IMAGES
MICHAEL CHALONA
215 W. MAGNOLIA ST. #202
FT. COLLINS, CO 80521
mate: 8/22/02
Staff has reviewed your submittal for WAFFLE HOUSE, 616 S. COLLEGE AVE. PDP - TYPE 1
(LUC), and we offer the following comments. Comments are listed by department. The
comment numbers are part of our internal system only and are not in any particular order.
ISSUES:
Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes
Topic: Building Compatibility
68
These comments essentially reiterate what was discussed in two meetings with the applicants,
first in March and then in late April to discuss previous comments.
The standards cited previously in meetings and comments (Sections 3.4.7, 3.5.3, and 4.14) are
not adequately met by the addition of the raised peak at the entrance and the masonry stripes
at the top and bottom of the building.
General Comments. The architecture should be more tailored to this Fort Collins Community
Commercial district, with more prominent detail characteristics to complement the historic
character of the adjacent Darrah House, which would then serve to meet standards for Mixed
Use and Commercial Buildings as well. These different considerations would work well
together to shape a building design consistent with the CC zone district.
The CC zone district is for mixed -use town centers, as distinctly opposed to suburban shopping
center -type development. Fort Collins' Comprehensive Plan language on CC districts includes:
"The physical environment will provide a high quality urban life ... with vertical mixed use
encouraged... uniquely distinct, identifiable places... architectural character of individual buildings
will be coordinated and contribute to a coherent identity and sense of place... building
massing... should relate to nearby buildings and the urban context..."
Specific Comments.
1. 3.4.7(A)(2) - The building design does not adequately respect the historic character of the
adjacent building, and adversely affects the integrity of the resource, with an overall approach
more in keeping with a suburban shopping center. 3.4.7(B) - The building design does not
protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any such historic property, and is
not compatible with the historic character. 3.4.7(E)(2) - The building is not in character with the
existing historic structure.
As discussed, there is plenty of latitude to accommodate the large difference between the
proposed commercial building and the existing residential structure. However, within this